ID: nht71-5.20

DATE: 12/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of September 22, 1971, I have enclosed a copy of our letter of May 21, 1971, to Mr. George Jones of the Louisiana Tire Dealer and Retreader Association. Department of Transportation regulations require that we charge a duplicating fee of $ .50 per page for this service. Please, therefore, remit the sum of $ 1.50 to the undersigned, payable to the Treasurer of the United States.

In your letter you also enclosed a copy of an article that appeared in the September 1971 edition of the Modern Tire Dealer Magazine concerning the letter to Mr. Jones, and ask whether the article's conclusion that wheel testing is not a must," is accurate. This conclusion is correct. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.), manufacturers are not required to test the compliance of their products to applicable standards in any particular manner. The test procedures specified in any particular standard indicate only the manner by which the agency will test for compliance, and manufacturers are free to utilize any test procedure they wish as long as they can show that they exercised "due care to comply with the standard. The use of wheel tests, however, as our letter to Mr. Jones indicates, may have an effect on a manufacturer's ability to show he used "due care" should he be called on to make that showing.

ENC.

ID: nht72-4.6

DATE: 03/29/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you asked to be referred to the information on which we based our statement in the notice of February 24, 1972, that systems meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 are available using current seat belt technology.

Research data on the capabilities of seat belts are found in several places in the public docket, notably in the progress reports from our Safety Systems Laboratory and from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (69-7 General Reference Nos. 74, 75, 83, 96, 102, 117, 120 and 135). There are records of vehicle tests in which current lap and shoulder belt systems have met the injury criteria (see, e.g. N<13>-69-7-20; N<13>-69-7-37). Also, the record contains information on energy absorbing webbing and anchorages, both of which are improvements within the current state of the art (see, for example, the 6th progress report from Cornell, runs no. 625-630, 69-7 General Reference No. 135; the data from Toyota in N<13>-69-7-23; and the Takata Koyjo data in N<16>-16-69-7-1).

Although the behavior of the head seems to be a greater problem for belt systems than the behavior of the chest, due in part to the effects of rebound, we have proposed changes in the head injury criterion that should ease the problem considerably.

ID: nht72-4.7

DATE: 04/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Technical Center

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 28, 1972, in which you asked to be referred to the information on which we based our statement in the notice of February 24, 1972, that systems meeting the injury criteria of Standard 208 are available using current seat belt technology.

Research data on the capabilities of seat belts are found in several places in the public docket, notably in the progress reports from our Safety Systems Laboratory and from Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (69-7 General Reference Nos. 74, 75, 83, 96, 102, 117, 120, and 135). There are records of vehicle tests, including some performed by General Motors, in which current lap and shoulder belt systems have met the injury criteria (see, e.g., N<13>-69-7-20; N<13>-69-7-37). Also, the record contains information on energy absorbing webbing and anchorages, both of which are improvements within the current state of the art (see, for example, the 6th progress report from Cornell, runs no. 625-630, General Reference No. 135; the data from Toyota in N<13>-69-7-23; and the Takata Koyjo data in N<16>-69-7-1).

Although the behavior of the head seems to be a greater problem for belt systems than the behavior of the chest, due in part to the effects of rebound, the changes in the head injury criteria proposed in Notice 17 should ease the problem considerably.

ID: nht73-4.45

DATE: 08/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 15, 1973, concerning your dealer's refusal to move back the driver's seat in your new car. I apologize for the delay in our reply.

You state in your letter that adjustment of the seat was made a pre-condition of the sale. A dealer who adjusts a seat prior to sale in this fashion will have to be able to certify that the seat, as modified, conforms to the Federal motor vehicle safety standard governing passenger car seats (Standard No. 207) and to other standards that may be affected by the seat position, such as the seat belt anchorage standard (Standard No. 210). A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat so long as the modified seats continue to perform in the manner required by the standard. Often, however, dealers decide not to assume the burdens of certifying modified components and therefore decline to modify such components prior to sale.

he Federal Safety Standards do not apply to motor vehicles after they have been purchased by the consumer. After you purchase the car, the standards do not prevent you from modifying it, even if such modifications affect the ability of the car to meet the standards. If you purchased your car with the seat in its modified position, you can modify it or have the dealer modify it without incurring liability under the standards.

ID: nht92-6.30

DATE: May 28, 1992

FROM: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Council, NHTSA

COPYEE: Dan Cohen -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/10/92 from Paul J. Rice (signed by John Womack) to Christian Hammarskjold (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208); Also attached to letter dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

I have spoken with Mr. Cohen who asked me to direct my questions to you in writing.

USSC is a supplier of suspension seats for drivers to transit buses. Our customers, SCRTD in Los Angeles, has asked us to develop a system whereby our suspension seats can tilt from side-to-side. This is meant to compensate for the slanted roads in LA that facilitate water run off.

We are, of course, aware of 207/210 and do not believe that tilt system will meet the performance requirements. In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to-side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

We request an answer by mail or fax by June 15, 1992. This will allow us enough time to respond to SCRTD's June 19th deadline.

If you have any questions, please call.

(Drawings omitted)

ID: 0722

Herr Tilman Spingler
Robert Bosch GmbH
FAX 49-7121-35-1792

Dear Herr Spingler:

We have received your FAX of February 15, 1995, asking whether a proposed design "for a lens-reflector-joint can be considered as conforming to the appropriate definition in FMVSS 108."

The agency does not advise manufacturers whether particular designs are regarded as "conforming." That determination is to be made by the manufacturer in certifying that its product conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. However, we can provide you with an interpretive guideline. Section S4 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" as a headlamp "comprising a bonded lens reflector assembly and one or two replaceable light sources." The intent of the definition was that the lens and reflector assembly be an indivisible unit upon manufacture of the headlamp. This means that, if a lens is broken, the entire lens reflector assembly must be replaced. If your design is such that the lens cannot be removed from the reflector assembly for replacement, it would appear to meet the definition in S4.

As you are well aware, NHTSA granted your company's petition for rulemaking, and, in November 1994, proposed an amendment of the definition of "replaceable bulb headlamp" that would allow a replaceable lens if the headlamp incorporates a vehicle headlamp aiming device conforming to S7.8.5.2. Comments were due on this proposal February 21, 1995. In due course, after review of the comments, NHTSA will decide whether it will pursue further rulemaking or terminate the rulemaking action.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/8/95

ID: 1982-2.31

DATE: 08/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Continental Insurance Companies -- William J. Benzie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William J Benzie Corporate Fleet Coordinator The Continental Insurance Companies Eighty Maiden Lane New York, N.Y. 10038

Dear Mr. Benzie:

This responds to your recent letter asking about Federal regulations pertaining to automotive glass and to windshield repair kits. You are particularly interested in the Novus windshield repair method and ask if it has been approved by the agency.

The agency has issued Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in motor vehicles. There are no standards or regulations specifically governing Windshield repair methods. However, I am enclosing a letter of interpretation which the agency issued in 1975 regarding the Novus method of windshield repair. I am also enclosing a letter of interpretation which discusses the general responsibilities of persons who modify or repair vehicles, including windshields, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Please look closely at the third and fourth paragraphs of that letter.

Please note that the agency does not grant prior approval of any motor vehicle, motor vehicle equipment or method of vehicle repair. It is the responsibility of the vehicle or equipment manufacturer to certify that its products are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and regulations.

I hope the enclosed information will answer all of your questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/08/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dec 31, 1986

U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

This is in further response to your letter of July 15, 1986, in which you asked a number of questions concerning our standards and regulations. This responds to your question about Part 585, Automatic Restraint Phase-In Reporting Requirements. I hope the following discussion answers your question.

You asked about the requirement in Part 585.5(a)(4) of the regulation. That section provides that a manufacturers report "contain a statement regarding the extent to which the manufacturer has complied with the requirements of S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. " You explained that you did not understand what the sentence means and asked whether your sample report conformed to the requirement of the regulation.

S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208 provides for the phasing-in of the automatic restraint requirements and sets certain percentage of passenger car production requirements that each manufacturer must meet. The purpose of Part 585.5(a)(4) is to have each manufact urer state to what degree of extent it has met the applicable phase-in requirement. Thus, a statement, such as the one contained in your sample report, which sets out the percentage of your vehicles produced during an applicable reporting period that com ply with the automatic restraint phase-in requirements of the standard would meet the requirement of Part 585.5(a)(4).

If you have any further questions, please me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-1.49

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1989

FROM: Heracilio R. Prieto -- President, Easton, Inc.

TO: Erika Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-27-90 from P.J. Rice to H.R. Prieto (A36; Std. 116)

TEXT:

Our company has blended and packaged brake fluids in Puerto Rico for over 10 years. We have always interpreted that the lot number/packaging date must be printed directly on the brake fluid container for us to be in strict compliance under FMVSS 116.

Given the aggressiveness of brake fluids on any ink, we have always wished we were allowed to use a label notch coding system which we have used successfully for years in our detergent packaging operation. The relative simplicity of the mechanical devic e, vis-a-vis the jet-ink coder, also makes thc notch system operationally more reliable.

The recent revisions in S5.2.2.2 of standard 116 seem oriented to demand indelibility and permanence in the information required on the brake fluid label or container. No ink system could possibly match the notched label on either count. In the spirit of this new approach, I urge you to consider the notch system as an acceptable method of batch/date coding brake fluid bottles.

I am attaching copies of the literature from the exclusive supplier of this system for your perusal.

I hope you concur with our assessment and look forward to your comments. Please let me know if you need any additional informational from us.

Attached is literature entitled Codedge Label Dating Machine (text omitted).

ID: nht76-1.44

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to confirm your May 19, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office, concerning the effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

You were particularly concerned with one paragraph in the preamble of Notice 4 (41 FR 18659; May 6, 1976; Docket No. 71-19). That notice delayed the effective dates of certain requirements of the standard. The paragraph in question is:

Manufacturers should note that, apart from the changed effective date for the requirement in S5.1.1 that vehicles be equipped with properly marked rims, there is no delay in the September 1, 1976, effective date of the standard's basic requirement, S5.1 (Tire and Rim Selection).

Section S5.2, Rim Marking, is the only the section of the standard that applies directly to rims. Section S5.1 applies directly to vehicles. As Mr. Schwimmer explained, however, two aspects of S5.1 (both found in S5.1.1) involve rims as well.

The first sentence of S5.1.1 includes a "suitability" requirement:

. . . each vehicle . . . shall be equipped with . . . rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires . . .

The second sentence, as amended by Notice 4, reads.

On and after September 1, 1979, each such vehicle shall be equipped with rims that meet the requirements of this standard.

The paragraph in question is simply a reminder that the "suitability" requirement, among others, is effective September 1, 1976, as originally established in Notice 3 (41 FR 3478; January 23, 1976).