ID: nht88-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT PETERSON MANUFACTURING CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/22/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM PAUL SCULLY RE INTERPRETATION OF EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA, OCC - 1946

TEXT: Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 1988, asking for a clarification of a letter that this Office sent Wesbar Corporation on March 16, 1988, with respect to the term "effective projected luminous area."

Wesbar had asked whether it could include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" (Wesbar's language) in its calculation of the 12 square inch minimum effective projected luminous area required by S4.1 .17 of Safety Standard No. 108. We replied that it could, assuming that the light shines through the reflector. You have pointed out that although a small amount of light escapes through a reflex reflector, the reflector is designed to return light fro m an outside source, rather than to direct light from a source inside the lamp, and that heretofore agency interpretations (e.g. on October 28, 1970, and October 28, 1979) had expressly excluded reflex reflectors from areas included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. Reflex reflectors are also excluded from the term by SAE J387 Terminology.

We appreciate your calling this matter to our attention. Previous interpretations by this Office clearly indicate that a "reflex reflector" is not to be included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. We also note that the SAE definit ion (paragraph 2, SAE J594f,

January 1977) is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, stating that this item of equipment is one that provides an indication of vehicle presence by reflected light (rather than projected light). We are providing a copy of this letter to Wesbar so that it will be apprised of our reevaluation, and our conclusion that the reflex reflector portion of a lens cannot be included in the calculations of the projected luminous lens area.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht73-5.44

DATE: 11/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Roy Stolpestad

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning the 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis. As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law on odometer fraud enables you to bring a civil action against Central. The amount of recovery in such an action can be substantial. If the court were to accept your estimate of damages of $ 1490.24, the damages assessable under Federal law would be three times that amount $ 4470.72. In no case would damages be less than $ 1500, a minimum value established by law. In addition, if you are successful, Central must pay your attorney fees as well as all court costs.

I appreciate your concern for the costs of litigation. However, by providing for the payment of attorney fees the odometer law places you in a better position than a personal injury litigant whose recovery is usually diminished by his attorney's contingency fee. Your best course at this point is therefore to retain counsel if Central persists in its refusal to reimburse you.

By way of advice to your attorney, I would point out that the "out" that Central claims to have taken -- checking the box on the disclosure form that indicates the true mileage is unknown -- was taken too late to be of benefit to them. The Federal regulation governing disclosure requires the disclosure statement to be made "before executing any transfer of ownership form." If they mailed the statement the next day, their disclosure was untimely. Moreover, the representations made in the newspaper advertisment are evidentiary of their representation of 33,000 miles as being the true mileage on the vehicle. Your success in finding the previous

owner is also useful in establishing that the actual mileage was greater than shown.

We will be willing to give you or your attorney further advice if questions arise concerning the intent and effect of the Federal odometer law. The enclosed copies of the law and regulations are provided to assist him in representing you.

ENC.

ID: nht73-2.46

DATE: 12/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hyattsvile Auto Glass

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 29, 1973, request to know if urethane bonding material must be used in the installation of windshields in new motor vehicles not yet sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

Standard 212, Windshield mounting, is a performance standard for new motor vehicles. We do not require the use of specific bonding materials such as urethane, but only that the vehicle conform to Standard 212, whatever material is used. The New York suit you mentioned may involve a question of due care in the installation of the windshield, separate from the question of meeting a Federal minimum performance standard.

YOURS TRULY,

IHyattsville Auto Glass

NOVEMBER 29, 1973

ROBERT DYSON ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HWY. SAFETY STANDARDS

DEAR MR. DYSON:

AFTER TALKING WITH YOU BY TELEPHONE ABOUT A STATEMENT MADE BY GENERAL MOTORS IN ONE OF THEIR BULLETINS ON THE USING OF URETHANE TO INSTALL WINDSHEILDS, I WAS TOLD OF A GLASS SHOP IN NEW YORK THAT IS BEING SUED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T USE URETHANE IN THE INSTALLATION OF A WINDSHEILD OF A 1974 MODEL VEHICLE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT SAFETY STANDARD 212 ONLY PERTAINS TO NEW VEHICLES NOT HAVING BEEN SOLD, AS WAS EXPLAINED IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20, 1972. IS THERE ANY REGULATION THAT SAYS THAT A WINDSHEILD BEING INSTALLED IN A NEW 1974 MODEL VEHICLE (ONE NOT SOLD TO A FIRST PURCHASER) HAS TO BE INSTALLED WITH URETHANE BONDING MATERIAL? OR ARE WE STILL ALLOWED TO USE THE BONDING MATERIAL OF OUR CHOICE AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS TO STANDARD 212?

I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE YOU CAN GIVE US BECAUSE OF THE APPARENT HAZARDS AND LENGTH OF CURING TIME WE DON'T WANT TO USE URETHANE UNLESS WE ARE REQUIRED TO BY YOUR DEPARTMENT.

AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE ASSISTANCE YOU HAVE GIVEN US IN THIS AS IN PREVIOUS MATTERS.

SINCERLY YOURS

ROBERT WOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS

ID: GF004197

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108




Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your letter regarding applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to items attached to a floor-mounted console. You specifically ask about a foldable video monitor that is attached to the console. Our answer is the monitor you depict would be excluded.

FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. Specifically, certain areas within the vehicle must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Head impact protection performance is determined, in part, by testing specific targets on the vehicle interior.

S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 201 excludes console assemblies from the head impact protection requirements of the standard. Although console assemblies are not defined in FMVSS No. 201, they commonly refer to low-lying structures mounted on the vehicle floor between the front seats. You ask if the exclusion in S5.1.1(a) would apply to a foldable video monitor attached to the console.

The height of a console assembly is not limited by our standards. If the monitor were permanently incorporated into the console in the protruded position, it would be considered part of the console and excluded from the standard even though the height of the console would be unusually high. The fact that the monitor you are considering can fold to a "stored" position does not have a bearing on whether the monitor is part of the console. We consider a video monitor attached to the console to be part of the console even when it is foldable.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.7/7/05

ID: 9123

Mr. Jack McIntyre
Vice President
Tie Tech Inc.
Post Office Box 5226
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5226

Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . ." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:209#222#571 d:11/23/93

ID: nht68-3.8

DATE: 01/14/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The Armstrong Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letter of December 5, 1967, which asks if the labeling requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 109, can be complied with by placing some of the information on one sidewall of a tire and other information on the other sidewall.

The Standard requires that all of the labeling information be on both sidewalls and placing some of the necessary information on one sidewall of the tire and some on the other would not satisfy this requirement.

The standard provides that until August 1, 1968, the labeling requirements of S4.3 may be met by affixing to each tire a label or tag that incorporate all specified information not molded into or onto the tire."

THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER COMPANY

December 5, 1967

Mr. L.K. Bridwell Federal Highway Administrator National Highway Safety Bureau

Ref: Labeling of Tires where S.4.3 Requirements Appear on One Side of the Tire Only.

The mechanics of complying with the labeling requirements of S.4.3 MVSS No. 109 can become very cumbersome and expensive.

Here was our thinking over a year ago - we placed all the required information on what would be the white sidewall part of the mold, leaving the black side free to add that which would be required by the U.S. Department of Transportation, in the standards which we now have.

The attached sheet with this explanation will reveal the problem. Label No. 1 is basic. Labels 2 to 11 inclusive would have to be added to the tire. The workmen would first affix the basic label than a label to supply this missing information. As can be seen there are 56 sizes involved and ten other labels which shows a basic of conbinations to be 560.

We request an early reply whether labels are required, when the information already appears on one sidewall, except the basic label. It is also our feeling that labeling is not a serious requirement to meet minimum safety standards.

R.L. Donnelly Corporate Secretary

ID: nht68-4.7

DATE: 09/02/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: General Supply and Equipment Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 7, 1969, to the Federal Highway Administration, concerning head restraints on your 1969 Lincoln Continental Sedan.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202: Head Restraints Passenger Cars, specifies that a head restraint must be provided at each outboard front seating position on cars manufactured on or after January 1, 1969. This standard does not prohibit an individual from modifying or removing the head restraints once he purchases the car. However, a particular state may have inspection laws which prohibit such actions. I suggest you check the matter with your state inspection authorities.

Our Highway Safety Program Standards, copy enclosed, set minimum performance requirements for state inspection programs. Each state is free to establish its own program which meets or exceeds the Federal guidelines. The fact that our Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requires head restraints to be installed on all new passenger cars is evidence of our belief in the level of safety provided by these devices in rear collisions. We would strongly endorse a state inspection program which supported this and our other standards. I am enclosing a booklet which describes all of our motor vehicle standards.

Regarding your particular case, we agree that good visibility is necessary for the safe operation of an automobile. However, properly designed head restraints should not significantly restrict visibility. The injury-reducing benefit far outweights the slight loss of visibility which may occur in certain passenger cars. See(Illegible Word) to the head restraint standard enclosed.

As a practical matter, I would not recommend removal of your head restricts. Aside from the level of rear collision protestion which they provide, their removal may mean that their support structure within the seat back is exposed and this may present a hazard to any rear seat occupants who may hit their heads on the front seat back in a forward collision.

I would suggests the alternative of an additional rear view mirror on the right side of your vehicle to provide increased rear visibility.

Your interest in our progress is appreciated.

ID: nht69-1.18

DATE: 02/11/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Clue D. Ferguson; NHTSA

TO: Payne, Barlow and Green, Attorneys at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 23, 1969, to William Haddon, Jr., M.D., requesting information on Federal standards for child restraint devices.

I am enclosing a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, "Scat Belt Assemblies - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses" which includes requirements for a Type 3 seat belt assembly for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds and capable of sitting upright by themselves.

The technical requirements of the present standard No. 209 were previously included in "Standard for Seat Belts for Use in Motor Vehicles (15 CFR Part 9; 31 F.R. 11528)" which was incorporated by reference in the initial Standard No. 209. I am also enclosing copies of these previous documents.

We are in the process of developing a standard for child car seats and I am enclosing a copy of a recently issued Notice of Proposed Rule Making on this subject. It is important to note that this is only a proposed regulation and the requirements may be modified somewhat when the final rule is published. However, this proposed rule indicates those safety features which are considered to be important for a child car seat.

There are no other existing Federal standards on child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

January 23, 1969

William Haddon, Director National Highway Safety Bureau Department of Transportation

Dear Dr. Haddon:

I am seeking information regarding Federal Standards for Child Restraint Devices and will appreciate your furnishing same to me as soon as it is convenient for you.

I am attempting to measure the adequacy of a particular device that apparently contributed to a child's injury that occurred on May 15, 1968. I do not know the date of manufacture of this device but it is important that I obtain an itemization of minimum standards that have applied for several years.

Sincerely,@@53:426

ID: nht70-1.4

DATE: 08/03/70

FROM: JOSEPH R. O'GORMAN FOR FRANCIS ARMSTRONG -- NHTSA

TO: Evans, Gentither and Meermans

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 USC 1381 et. seq., the National Highway Safety Bureau issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109 (FMVSS-109). This standard set forth strength, bead unseating, endurance, high speed and labeling requirements for passenger car tires manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, for use on cars manufactured after 1948. This standard does not apply to other types of tires. A copy of FMVSS-109 is enclosed. A manufacturer self-certifies that the tire meets the minimum requirements of the standard by molding the symbol "DOT" into the tire. Subsequent identification of the tire as a "second" would not negate the certification.

The National Highway Safety Bureau is currently testing many brand/size tires to verify their conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. The tests are conducted at independent laboratories under contract to the Government. Results of these tests are released to the public in a monthly summary.

The test results do not reflect the Bureau's position on the matter. Favorable test results should not be interpreted as necessarily establishing that a specific tire is in conformity with the standard; similarly, unfavorable test results should not be interpreted as establishing nonconformance.

Copies of individual test reports can be obtained, for a fee of $ 3.00 per publication, from the Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Should sufficient data be left remaining on the tire in question for proper identification, you may wish to avail yourself of this service.

There is an organization which could possibly furnish you with the name of an individual capable of analyzing the causes of tire failures. Their name and address is; American Council of Independent Laboratories, Incorporated, 1714 West Capitol Avenue, Houston, Texas 77007.

I trust this information will be useful to you, and I appreciate this opportunity to be of assistance.

ID: nht74-3.39

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rozner and Yorty

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on seat belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempts state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)).

The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of seat belts and reclining seats.

Yours truly,

ROZNER AND YORTY

March 26, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Re: Three point restraint on reclining passenger seat

Gentlemen:

I represent a passenger who was injured while she was sleeping in a bed-like reclining passenger seat. She slid out the back. She had a conventional seat belt on, but it did not help.

Are there any regulations either in the past or the future that would apply to this situation, either State or Federal? Have there been any studies on this subject or any interest in this subject. I shall appreciate whatever help you can give me.

Very truly yours,

William A. Goichman