ID: aiam3960

Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1985, asking for a interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding requirements for the center high- mounted stop lamp.; You reference an agency letter of July 30, 1980, to Volkswagen o America in which the Chief Counsel concluded that placement of the stop lamps and taillamps on the deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance requiring notification and remedy. You have asked, in essence, how this relates to Standard No. 108's present allowance of a center high- mounted stop lamp mounted on a vehicle's decklid, hatch, or tailgate.; The assumption underlying the agency's 1980 letter was that a defec could exist if all a vehicle's stop lamps and taillamps were mounted on the decklid, where their signals could be unobserved or obscured if the lid were in any position other than closed. The center high-mount stop lamp, on the other hand, while an item of required equipment, is nevertheless a supplementary stop lamp. Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps remaining on the body.; You have asked that we also discuss the implications of a stop lamp an taillamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid.; Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its norma driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed. However, in order to obviate any possibility of the existence of a safety-related defect, we recommend that the portion of the lamp that is mounted on the body itself comply with the minimum requirements of Standard No. 108 for a single compartment stop lamp or taillamp.; I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1308

Dear Mr. Stolpestad: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning th 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis.; As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law o 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, b 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 (sic) 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 i 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.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3765

Dear Ms. Hill: This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specifi questions relating to Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*. Your questions and their answers are listed below:; 1. Provide a definitive interpretation of 'erratic burning' as used i the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.; 'Erratic burning,' as that term is used in the standard, relates t incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.; 2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word 'anticipate' as use in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?; In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.; 3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendmen limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No 302.; 4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply t a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?; We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The materia would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.; 5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 197 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?; The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302- 02. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2807

Dear Ms. Soodek: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal Safet Standard No. 205 specifies requirements limiting the reflectivity of glazing materials. You are concerned with the lack of uniformity in state laws that prohibit nontransparent or reflective windows in motor vehicles.; The stated purpose of Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, i to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. The standard does not prohibit reflective glazing, nor does it specify requirements that would limit the degree of reflectivity of glazing materials.; Since reflectivity is not an aspect of performance governed by Federa safety standards, state laws concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted by Standard No. 205. Safety Standard No. 205 does, however, specify requirements for the luminous transmittance of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Therefore, state laws prohibiting nontransparent windows would be preempted if they attempted to regulate the glazing manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). State regulations applicable to the vehicle owner or user would not be preempted, on the other hand, since the Federal regulation is only applicable to the manufacturer. Therefore, a state law could prohibit the application of a nontransparent decal on a window by a vehicle owner, for example.; I am enclosing a copy of the California Highway Patrol petition fo rulemaking regarding glazing abrasion requirements and glazing reflectivity. A notice concerning this petition will be issued at some time in the near future.; I must point out that our statutory authority requires all safet standards to be reasonable, objective and to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. The agency cannot, therefore, regulate an aspect of motor vehicle performance or design if there is no data or evidence indicating that a safety problem exists.; I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hug Oates of my office if you have any further questions.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4068

Dear Mr. Panetta: This responds to your request that we review the concerns expressed b one of your constituents, Mr. Joseph Loschiavo, about certain van seats. According to Mr. Loschiavo, the Monterey County Van Program for senior citizens uses vans with seats that are very low and close together, making it difficult for persons to get up out of the seats. He suggested that either the seats be raised about eight inches or that special seats be provided for persons who have problems with the present seats.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues moto vehicle safety standards. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, *Seating Systems*, establishes requirements to minimize the possibility of seat failure during vehicle collisions. However, NHTSA does not have any standards concerning the height or spacing of van seats.; The Monterey County Van Program has several options in obtaining van with appropriate seating. In purchasing new vans, the Program may either select from among the variety of vans offered by the major vehicle manufacturers, or go to one of a number of companies that customize vans to purchasers' specifications. A number of companies also modify used vehicles.; We note that new vans, including vans which are modified prior to firs sale, are required to be certified to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The specific certification requirements are set forth at 49 CFR Part 567, *Certification*. If a used vehicle is modified by a business such as a garage, the business is not required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus, if a business replaced a van's existing seats with higher seats, it would need to make sure that it was not rendering inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 207 or any other Federal motor vehicle safety standard.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1006

Dear Mr. Monk: Dr. Brinegar asked that I review and respond to your letter of Decembe 23, 1972, regarding warning devices.; As you know from previous correspondence, the National Highway Traffi Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making on a standard for warning devices in November 1970. One of our major concerns in issuing this standard was the great variety of warning devices of all sizes, shapes, forms and configurations that were available to the motoring public. While many of these provided varying degrees of effectiveness, the great variety also created confusion and misunderstanding to the motoring public. Standardization of these devices was therefore of prime importance.; In response to this notice many comments, designs and recommendation were suggested for inclusion in the standard. All responses were carefully reviewed and evaluated before we issued the final rule in March 1972. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125 represents an attempt to achieve a balance between many factors including shapes, size, cost, visibility, stability and weight. Since these triangle are designed for ultimate use in all kinds of vehicles, from passenger cars to heavy trucks, we had to be careful not to specify requirements that would put them beyond the reach of the average motoring public.; We are appreciative of your comments to the docket and your subsequen correspondence of the Department of Transportation, regarding the wind stability requirement of the device. Vehicles traveling at 70 mph do not create an effective wind velocity of 70 mph off the roadside. Research data shows that warning devices designed to withstand wind velocities of approximately 40 mph will be sufficient for the majority of wind conditions created by truck turbulence and atmospheric wind velocities without unnecessary penalties in weight and cost. However, Standard No. 125 will in no way restrict the manufacture and sale of devices with higher wind-resistance capabilities for special uses. These are *minimum* standards.; Again, we appreciate your interest in this aspect of motor vehicle safety. it is the ideas and opinions of concerned individuals, such as yourself, that enable us to ensure rules and regulations that are meaningful and worthwhile to the motoring public. Thank you for writing E.T. Driver, Director, Office of Operating Systems, Motor Vehicle Programs;

ID: aiam2918

Dear Mr. Shuster: This responds to your inquiry dated November 29, 1978, on behalf of on of your constituents, Mr. C. Stake, requesting information about Federal safety standards concerning door locks on automobiles. Specifically, Mr. Stake is concerned that the doors on his 1977 Mercury Monarch can be unlocked by a child from the inside by lifting the door handle.; I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 206 (49 CFR 571.206) which specifies performance requirements for side door locks and side door retention components to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact. That standard specifies that each door on a passenger car shall be equipped with a locking mechanism with an operating means in the interior of the vehicle. Paragraph S4.1.3.1 of the standard specifies that when the locking mechanism on a side *front* door is engaged, the outside door handle or other outside latch release control shall be inoperative. For side *rear* doors, however, paragraph S4.1.3.2 requires both the outside and inside door handles to be inoperative when the locking mechanism is engaged.; This latter requirement was specifically included in the standard t address Mr. State's concern, that is, to prevent children from unlocking rear doors by means of the door handle. The design restriction was limited to rear doors on the basis that the danger arises primarily with unattended children sitting in the rear seat. A child sitting in the front seat is likely under the watchful eye of the driver. Further, there is the consideration that in emergency situations the driver may need to unlock his front door as easily and quickly as possible.; Since the Standard No. 206 requirements have been in effect for som time, we assume that the situation Mr. Stake describes is true only of the front doors of his Mercury Monarch. As noted above, however, there are competing safety considerations involved with door locks on front side doors.; Please contact our office if your constituent has any further question concerning this matter, or have him contact us directly.; Sincerely, Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1890

Dear Mr. Denholm: This responds to Midland-Ross' March 19, 1975, questions whether S5.7. of Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, (as effective September 1, 1976) specifies reservoirs that are charged to 100 psi before or after introduction of a failure as specified in S5.7.1, static or dynamic testing of emergency brake system application and release, and design limits of 1 to 60 psi for emergency brake system application and release. You also asked whether S5.7.4(c) requires modulation of the towed vehicle emergency system in cases of control line failure, and whether such a failure qualifies as a 'single failure in the service brake system' for purposes of emergency brake system performance under S5.7.1.; Section S5.7.3 specifies emergency application and release capabilit with all air reservoirs charged to 100 psi, followed by introduction of a failure. The vehicle is tested for this application and release capability statically. In our reconsideration of this amendment, NHTSA will consider a clarification of this language.; The maximum of 1 psi for pressure release and minimum 60 psi fo pressure application are intended only as objective measures of what constitute an application or a release. In the petitions for reconsideration of this amendment, it has been suggested that the ability to move the vehicle and then stop it after an emergency brake application would permit greater design freedom in the design of emergency brake systems. This issue will be addressed in our response to petitions for reconsideration.; Section S5.7.4(c) requires that a towing vehicle be capable o modulating the air in the supply or control line following a single failure in the service brake system on the towing vehicle, but does not require modulation of the towed vehicle emergency brake system under any circumstance (including control line failure).; This language is intended to assure that a single failure in the truc itself will not prevent modulation of an unimpaired system from the tractor protection system rearwards. A clarification of this language may be necessary.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: 571.213--detachable base--crs3

Dear [                    ]:

This responds to a January 7, 2020, letter from [               ] that [      ] emailed to us on [   ]. We apologize that we were unaware of the January 7 letter prior to your contacting us. The letter asks about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213), “Child restraint systems,” as applied to a child restraint system (CRS) consisting of a “shell” 1 and a separate, detachable base. [  ] asks us to confirm that the shell and base “need only meet the requirements of FMVSS 213 when evaluated together as a system.” As explained below, we disagree with this view.

[      ] asks about a CRS design concept it calls the “Z Project.” The Z Project child restraint system has the following three components: (1) a rear-facing-only infant car seat shell (the “Z Infant Shell”); (2) a convertible2 shell that is used both rear-facing and forward-facing (the “Z Convertible Shell”); and (3) a detachable base with permanently attached components for securing it to the vehicle with either the lower anchors of the LATCH3 system or a vehicle’s Type 1 or 2 belt system (the “Z Base”).4

[      ] would like to offer the Z Project for sale in the United States in the following variations, which it calls “Sales Variations”: (1) a Z Infant Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; (2) a Z Base sold separately at retail; (3) a Z Convertible Shell and Z Base, packaged together at retail and sold as a system; and (4) the Z Convertible Shell purchased separately upon verification that the consumer is in possession of a Z Base.

[     ] asks about the permissibility of Sales Variations 3 and 4 where the “Shell” of the convertible child restraint is a separate component from the base. According to [    ], the Shell and Base are separate parts and may not even be sold together. As explained below, we believe Sales Variations 3 and 4 are not permitted by Standard 213.

Sales Variations 3 and 4
Standard 213 (section S4) defines a “child restraint system” as “any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 36 kilograms (kg) (80 lb) or less.” Standard 213 requires “child restraint systems” to meet performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury in a crash and ease-of- use requirements to increase the likelihood of consumers correctly using and installing CRSs.

Any device meeting the standard’s definition of a “child restraint system” must be certified to Standard 213’s requirements.

Because the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) consists of a molded frame structure that also has the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional convertible CRS, the Z Convertible Shell (without the Z Base) is a device designed to “restrain, seat or position children who weigh 36 kg (80 lb) or less” in motor vehicles. Based on this information, we believe the Z Convertible Shell meets the definition of a “child restraint system” and is a child restraint system in and of itself, without the Z Base. As a CRS, the Z Convertible Shell must meet the applicable requirements of Standard 213 standing alone, without use of a separate part or accessory like the Z Base.

Apparent Non-Compliances
It does not appear that the Z Convertible Shell would meet all applicable requirements of Standard 213. We discuss two apparent non-compliances below.

a.    S5.3.2 of Standard 213 requires each convertible CRS to meet the requirements of the standard when installed solely by each of the following means: (1) a Type 1 seat belt assembly (lap belt);5 (2) a Type 1 seat belt assembly plus a tether anchorage, if needed; and (3) the child restraint anchorage system specified by FMVSS No. 225 (LATCH system).

As [       ] describes the Z Convertible Shell (p. 3 of your letter), “there is no belt path for vehicle belt installation and there are no lower anchor LATCH attachment mechanisms.” As such, it appears the Z Convertible Shell would not meet S5.3.2 as it has no means of attaching to a vehicle by a seat belt or by the child restraint anchorage system. The Z Convertible Shell depends on the Z Base for vehicle attachment, but the Z Base is wholly separate from the Z Convertible Shell. A CRS that cannot be installed solely by a belt and by a child restraint anchorage system will not meet S5.3.2.6

[    ] believes that Standard 213’s requirements apply to the “entire system” and not to the Z Convertible Shell alone. This view does not accord with the language of the standard. The Z Convertible Shell alone restrains, seats or positions children weighing 36 kg (80 lb) or less in motor vehicles and thus is a “child restraint system” in and of itself. It must meet S5.3.2 solely by the belt and LATCH system without having to depend on an added separate part.

[     ] view is also at odds with the purposes of S5.3.2, which is to standardize the means of vehicle attachment and increase the likelihood of a correct and safe installation. The standard requires CRSs to provide at least a minimum level of safety without use of additional parts, to ensure that the restraint will provide an adequate level of protection in the event the additional parts are not used.7 A CRS design whose minimal crash protection is dependent on a consumer’s using supplemental parts is contrary to this purpose and is not permitted unless explicitly provided for by the standard.

b.    S5.9(a) of Standard 213 requires each child restraint system to have permanently attached components that enable the CRS to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of a child restraint anchorage system.8 The Z Convertible Shell attaches to the Z Base and the Z base is equipped with said components, but the Z Base is not a permanent part of the Z Convertible Shell. S5.9(a) states: “The components must be attached by use of a tool, such as a screwdriver.” The Z Convertible Shell does not have the child restraint anchorage system components attached to it by use of a tool like a screwdriver and so does not meet the requirements of S5.9(a).

One of NHTSA’s goals in establishing a child restraint anchorage system is to increase correct CRS use by ensuring that child restraint systems are convenient to install and use and are accepted by consumers.9 NHTSA adopted the “permanently attached” requirement in S5.9(a) to better ensure that the components on a CRS that attach to the child restraint anchorage system will be present and available for use by consumers through the life of the CRS.10 This is especially important with regard to child restraints, as it is common for child restraint systems to be handed down to others or otherwise re-used.

This interpretation is consistent with an April 26, 2007, interpretation addressing whether a CRS could be designed so that it attached to the child restraint anchorage system using a part that was called an “ISOFIX platform.”11 The ISOFIX platform appears similar to the Z Base: it alone had the child restraint anchorage system attachment and the CRS would attach to the ISOFIX platform. NHTSA stated the CRS design would not meet the requirements of Standard 213 because, although the CRS was designed to attach to the ISOFIX platform, FMVSS 213 requires the components attaching to the child restraint anchorage system to be permanently attached to the CRS. The agency did not regard the CRS and the ISOFIX platform as together comprising the “child restraint system.” Accordingly, NHTSA determined that the sale or importation of the CRS into the U.S. would be prohibited.

[    ] believes that the aforementioned Mercedes-Benz (MB) letter (footnote 7, supra) supports its view that NHTSA should apply FMVSS No. 213 to the Z Convertible Shell and the Z Base “together as a system.” The letter related to MB’s built-in12 booster seat that had a separate, non- integral “impact shield” and whether NHTSA would test the booster seat together with the impact shield. NHTSA said no, the booster seat must meet Standard 213’s requirements without use of the shield, because the impact shield was not part of the built-in CRS. We believe this outcome is consistent with our view in this letter that the Z Convertible Shell is a CRS unto itself and must meet Standard 213 without use of a separate part like the Z Base.

In answering MB, NHTSA also analyzed the applicability of the standard to various components of the MB system. [    ] focuses on the part of the MB letter that discusses whether the impact shield would be subject to the standard as an “add-on” child restraint system but, in doing so, [ ] appears to have misunderstood the context of and reasons for the agency’s statements. NHTSA’s statements related to its determination that the impact shield was not an add-on CRS due to the shield design and MB’s intention to sell the shield as part of the vehicle’s built-in system. NHTSA’s statement that the MB shield is “merely a component of a child restraint system and is not intended to be used separately from the other parts of the restraint system” was among those explaining why we concluded that the shield was not an add-on CRS that had to meet FMVSS 213 in its own right. The statements you quoted pertained to our decision that the MB shield was not an add-on CRS, and do not relate to how NHTSA would test an add-on system that had a separate part.

There are circumstances in which Standard 213 permits a child restraint to meet a requirement by way of a detachable base, but those situations are explicitly recognized in the standard and do not apply to your situation. For example, Standard 213 recognizes that some installation information may be on a detachable base (see, S5.5.3, which refers to the installation diagrams that must be visible when the CRS is installed).13 Another provision, discussed in a section below and one you ask about, relates to the last sentence of S5.9(a).

Your Question about the Last Sentence of S5.9(a)
The last sentence of S5.9(a) states: “In the case of rear-facing child restraints with detachable bases, only the base is required to have the components [that are permanently attached to the CRS that enable the restraint to be securely fastened to the lower anchorages of the child restraint anchorage system].” You believe this provision would permit the Z Convertible Shell to have the anchorage system components attached only to the detachable base (the Z Base).

Your understanding is incorrect. The provision only applies to rear-facing child restraints and does not apply to a convertible child restraint system like the Z Convertible Shell, because a convertible CRS is also a forward-facing child restraint system. If a child restraint could also be used forward-facing, the provision does not apply. NHTSA drafted the last sentence of S5.9(a) envisioning the provision as applying to “infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”14 The provision was adopted out of a concern at the time about the cost impacts of the rule on infant carriers (i.e., CRSs that are used rear-facing only).

Sales Variation 1
Please note that it appears the Z Infant Shell described in Sales Variation 1 must have a belt path for a vehicle belt installation (S5.3.2). The Z Infant Shell is a “child restraint system” under FMVSS No. 213 and, unless excepted by the standard,15 must meet the requirements of the standard standing alone without use of a separate part like the Z base. We cannot tell from materials whether there is a belt path on the Z Infant Shell itself. Please ensure that the Z Infant Shell in Sales Variation 1 has the required means of attaching by way of a vehicle seat belt assembly without the detachable base (Z base), as required by FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.2.

If you have other questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Digitally signed by ANN ELIZABETH CARLSON

Date: 2022.05.31

11:46:31 -04'00'

Ann Carlson

Chief Counsel

Dated: 5/31/22

Ref: FMVSS No. 213

1 Based on your letter and submissions, the shell consists of a molded plastic frame structure and the padding, padding cover, harness belt straps, belt buckles and labeling of a conventional child restraint.

2 As defined on NHTSA’s website, a “convertible” CRS is a type of CRS that “converts from rear-facing for babies and smaller children to forward-facing for older and larger children.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/car-seats-and-booster- seats/car-seat-glossary. [Footnote added.]

3 “LATCH” refers to the child restraint anchorage system that FMVSS 225, “Child restraint anchorage systems,” requires to be installed in motor vehicles. Industry and advocates have developed the term “LATCH” to refer to Standard 225’s child restraint anchorage system.

4 According to [   ] letter: “The Z Infant Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 35 lbs. The Z Convertible Shell installed with the Z Base will accommodate children from 4 to 50 lbs. rear-facing and 22 to 65 lbs. forward-facing.”

5 NHTSA has proposed to amend Standard 213 to refer instead to a Type II belt (lap-shoulder belt). Notice of proposed rulemaking, 85 FR 69388, November 2, 2020. This proposal does not affect our determination here that the Z Convertible Shell must have a means to attach to the vehicle seat by way of the belt system.

6 The Z Convertible Shell would have to meet other performance requirements of FMVSS 213 without use of the Z Base. For instance, the Z Convertible Shell would have to meet the head and knee excursion requirements without the use of a tether strap.

7 Mercedes-Benz letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/17513mer.b-i.htm. “Add-on, nonpermanent components can be lost or misplaced and may not be accessible when the restraint has to be used.” This interpretation concerns an “impact shield” that was not “formed as a unit” with the built-in CRS.

8 FMVSS 213 S5.9(a) inadvertently refers to a child restraint “anchorage” system instead of a “child restraint

system.” As indicated by the context of S5.9(a) and by the final rule adopting S5.9(a) (64 FR 10786, 10816; March 5, 1999), reference to “anchorage” is incorrect. NHTSA plans to correct the word soon.

9 LATCH final rule, 64 FR at 10797, col. 2.

10 In the rulemaking establishing FMVSS 225, NHTSA considered the merits of allowing vehicle manufacturers the option of installing an anchorage system that some CRSs could use only through an adapter that interfaced between the CRS and the anchorage system. Commenters overwhelmingly opposed an adapter, believing that the adapter would likely be lost or misused by consumers. The agency agreed and decided to adopt an anchorage system that would be universal to all vehicles and all CRSs. The Z Convertible Shell is contrary to NHTSA’s purpose in developing FMVSS 225 and the related requirements of FMVSS 213 S5.3.2 and S5.9(a), as the Z Base acts as an adapter that must be used for the CRS to attach to the anchorage system.

11 Gazza letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/005431rls.htm.

12 FMVSS No. 213 (S4) defines a “built-in child restraint system” as “a child restraint system that is designed to be an integral part of and permanently installed in a motor vehicle.” An “add-on” system is a portable child restraint system (S4).

13 In a January 16, 2003, letter (Meyer letter, https://isearch.nhtsa.gov/files/00070cmc.html), the agency addressed whether a CRS with a detachable base must have information labeled on the base if the seating portion of the CRS was already properly labeled. The agency said no, “a detachable base is part of a child restraint system” so “[a]s

long as the labeling requirements are met by the system as a whole, the base is not required to be labeled.” We do not give weight to this letter as it was narrowly focused on labeling, did not analyze S4’s CRS definition, S5.3.2, and S5.9(a), and was overtaken by the April 26, 2007 Gazza letter, supra, that found an ISOFIX platform not to be part of the child restraint. To the extent the Meyer letter is inconsistent with this and the Gazza letter, we consider the Meyer letter superseded.

14 Final rule preamble, 64 FR at 10806 (col.3). The discussion of the provision begins with: “Several commenters addressed the requirements that would apply to infant-only restraints with detachable bases.”

15 E.g., as noted above, the last sentence of S5.9(a) permits the rear-facing child restraint to use the Z Base to attach to the child restraint anchorage system, and S5.5.3 provides for some labeling to be on a detachable base.

ID: aiam3965

Dear Mr. Cooney: This responds to your letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, askin several questions about the removal of the DOT numbers from the sidewall of tires. In a February 5, 1985 telephone conversation with Mr. Kratzke, you stated that the answers to all of your questions except number 7 should address the situation only for tire dealers and distributors. With that limitation, I have set forth below the answers to each of your questions in the order presented in your letter.; 1. *Under what circumstances, if any, may a DOT number be removed fro a passenger car tire?*; There are no circumstances in which a tire dealer or distributor ca legally remove a DOT number from a passenger car tire. It is unclear when you refer to a 'DOT number' whether you are referring to just the tire identification number required to be on every new and retreaded tire by 49 CFR Part 574, or that identification number together with the DOT symbol. The DOT symbol is required to appear on all new tires for highway use and retreaded passenger car tires as a certification by the manufacturer or retreader that the tire fully complies with the applicable Federal safety standard.; In any case, Standard No. 109, *New pneumatic tires - passenger cars (49 CFR S571.109) applies to all new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948. Section S4.3.1 requires that the symbol DOT be on the tire, and section S4.3.1 requires that the tire identification number be on the tire. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)) specifies 'No manufacturer, *distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in an...item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...' By removing the DOT identification number, a dealer or distributor would be knowingly rendering inoperative an element of design on the tire which is included on the tire in compliance with Standard No. 109. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a penalty of up to $1000 for each violation of Section 108. This agency would consider each tire from which the DOT number had been removed to be a separate violation.; 2. *If the answer to question 1 is none, is there any situation in which a passenger car tire can b sold for farm or off- road use provided that the DOT number has been removed?*; There is no situation in which a passenger car tire with the DOT numbe removed can be sold for any purpose. Section S6 of Standard No. 109 reads as follows:; S6 *Nonconforming tires*. No tire that is designed for use on passenge cars and manufactured on or after October 1, 1972, but does not conform to all the requirements of this standard, shall be sold, offered for sale, introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, or imported into the United States, for any purpose.; A passenger car tire without the DOT number does not conform to al requirements of the standard, so its sale for any purpose is expressly prohibited. A violation of this section would subject the seller to a potential penalty of up to $1000 for each nonconforming tire sold.; 3. *Under what circumstances can tires for use on motor vehicles othe than passenger cars have the DOT number removed and the tires sold for off-road or farm use only?*; This is really a two part question. Again, there are *no* circumstance in which a tire dealer or distributor can legally remove the DOT number from these tires. Standard No. 119, *New pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars* (49 CFR 571.119) applies to these tires. Section S6.5(a) requires the DOT symbol to be on those tires, while section S6.5(b) requires the tire identification number to be on the tires. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits tire dealers and distributors for removing those symbols from the tire, and the penalty for removing those symbols is up to $1000 for every tire from which the symbols are removed.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) also prohibits manufacturers from removing DO numbers from tires and then selling the tires to distributors as tires for off-road use. It is theoretically possible that a tire dealer or distributor could acquire a small quantity of tires from which the DOT number had been removed by a party other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business. Assuming that a tire dealer or distributor did acquire some of these tires from which the DOT number had been removed, the tires could be sold for off-road use only. This is because Standard No. 119 has no comparable provision to section S6 of Standard No. 109. However, these tires may never legally be sold for used on the public roads (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)). A tire dealer or distributor who acquires tires from which the DOT number has been removed would be well advised to have some written statement to that effect on the sales slip. The purpose of such statement would be to prove that it was not the tire dealer or distributor who removed those numbers. When selling these tires for off-road use, the dealer or distributor should have some means of proving that he or she sold these tires with the caveat that they could only be used off-road. Either of your suggestions in question 4 (noting off-road use only on the sales slip or having the customer sign a document that the tires will only be used off-road) would be helpful for the dealer or distributor.; 4. *If a tire can be sold as described in Question 3, what must a tir distributer or dealer do to sell a tire?*; As noted above, either of your suggestions would be helpful for th dealer or distributor selling tires exclusively for off-road use. What the dealer must be able to do when selling these tires is show that he or she was not selling tires which do not comply with Standard No. 119 for use on the public roads.; 5. *If a tire in Question 4 is sold with no-highway use intended an the customer uses it on the highway, will the tire dealer or distributor be held in violation of the provision provided he met the requirements for noting that the tire was sold for non-highway use only?*; If a tire dealer or distributor can show that he or she did not remov the DOT numbers from the tires and that he or she sold the tires with the express understanding that the tires could not be used on the public roads, the dealer or distributor would not have violated any Federal requirements.; 6. *Is it possible that if the tire in Question 5 fails on the highwa and causes property or personal injury as a result that the tire dealer or distributor could be held liable for the damages or injuries? Even if he did not mount the tire on a rim for the customer?* This is a question of state law, which I cannot answer. However, I can say that it would be helpful for the dealer or distributor to have some proof that the customer was clearly told that these tires did not comply with the applicable Federal safety standard and could not be used on the public roads.; 7. *Who, if anyone, is allowed to remove DOT numbers?* a) A tire manufacturer may remove DOT numbers from its tires, as a wa of showing those tires do not satisfy the applicable standard Once a manufacturer does this, this tires may not legally be sold.; b) A retreader may remove the DOT numbers on the casing he or she i retreading. The retreader is generally required to mark its own identification number on each tire it retreads.; c) Once a tire has been sold for purposes other than resale, any perso or entity, *other than a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business,* may remove any or all markings from the tire.; 8. *If a retreader is allowed to remove DOT numbers, is he required t replace the removed number with his assigned DOT shop code number?*; Generally speaking, the retreader is required to permanently mark tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. 49 CFR 574.5 specifies: 'Each tire retreader...shall conspicuously label one sidewall of each tire he retreads by permanently molding or branding into or onto the sidewall...a tire identification number...' There are two minor exceptions to this provision. A tire retreader who retreads tires for his own use is not required to mark a tire identification number on those tires. Also tires which are retreaded exclusively for mileage contract purchasers are not required to bear the retreader's tire identification number if the tire contains the phrase 'for mileage contract use only' molded into or onto the tire sidewall. In all other instances, a retreader must mark its tire identification number on each tire it retreads.; 9. *Tire definition: since many tire sizes and styles are use interchangeably from passenger cars to light trucks and vans, especially mini-vans, how will the DOT decide whether Standard No. 109 or 119 applies to a case of DOT number removal and subsequent sale for off-road use?*; In the process of certifying their tires, manufacturers indicat whether that tire size is designated primarily for use on passenger cars or primarily for use on light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles (vans). This is occasionally done by an individual manufacturer for a particular tire size, but is most often done through the publications of standardization organizations. (A standardization organization is a voluntary association composed of representatives of each of the member tire companies. The purpose of these standardization organization is to establish and promulgate sound engineering standards for tires, rims, and their allied parts.) The agency uses these listings to determine whether a tire is certified for compliance with Standard No. 109 or No. 119. If you have any questions about particular tire sizes, you may wish to contact the American standardization organization, The Tire an Rim Association, at 3200 West Market Street, Akron, Ohio 44313.; 10. *Since DOT requires certain information to appear on the sidewal of the tire, whether passenger car or other type, what, if anything can be removed from the sidewall?*; A tire dealer or distributor can never legally remove any of th required information from the sidewall of tires. In the case of passenger car tires, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: The size designation, maximum permissible inflation pressure, maximum load rating, the generic name of each cord material used in the plies of the tire, the actual number of plies in the sidewall and in the tread, the words 'tubeless' or 'tube type', the word 'radial' if the tire is a radial tire, the DOT symbol, the name of the manufacturer or the brand name, and the identification number. In the case of tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars, the following information is required to appear on the sidewall: the DOT symbol, the tire identification number, the tire size designation, the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure, the speed restriction of the tire if 55 mph or less, the actual number of plies and the composition of the ply cord material in the sidewall and in the tread, the word 'tubeless' or tube type', the word 'regroovable' if the tire is designed for regrooving, the word 'radial if the tire is a radial tire, and the letter designating the load range of the tire. Removal of any of these required items of information by a tire dealer or distributor would be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained above in my answer to Question 1.; 11. a.*If a dealer is removing DOT numbers from tires then sellin those tires to a distributor who sells them to another dealer for resale to the customer, who is in violation of the Federal requirements?*; The answer to this question depends on whether the tires are for use o passenger cars or other motor vehicles. If the tires are passenger car tires, both dealers and the distributor have violated Federal requirements. The dealer removing the DOT numbers has violated Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 1 above. The distributor and dealer selling tires which do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 109 have violated section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act, as explained in the answer to Question 11.b below.; If the tires are for other motor vehicles, the dealer removing the DO numbers has violated section 108(a)(2)(A) of the safety Act. If the tire distributor and the dealer selling the tires to a customer can show that neither one removed the DOT numbers and that the tires were sold with the express understanding that they could not be used on the public roads, neither has violated any Federal requirement.; b. *If a customer buys tires with no DOT number and takes them t another dealer for mounting on his car, is that dealer in violation of Federal requirement because he mounted the tires, even though he did not sell them?*; Since this question deals with passenger car tires, a dealer mountin tires without DOT number would be in violation of Federal law. Section 1089a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act specifies, ' No person shall manufacture for sale, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the Unite States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...' A tire is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and a passenger car tire without DOT numbers is not in compliance with Standard No. 109. We have stated in previous interpretations that the use of noncomplying tires on pubic roads is an introduction of those tires in interstate commerce, and therefore a violation of this provision of the law. A dealer mounting noncomplying tires on a passenger car would also be considered to be introducing those tires into interstate commerce, and, therefore, also in violation of this provision.; 12. *Please sum up the intent of Standards No. 109 and 119 and indicat if the tire dealer or distributor has an obligation to report to DOT any tire dealer who is removing DOT number and/or other required sidewall information and then selling these tires. Also indicate how this would be done and what steps would follow?*; Standards No. 109 and 119 are intended to provide the tires purchase with necessary information for the safe operation of those tires on the purchaser's vehicle. Tire dealers and distributors cannot remove this information from the sidewall of the tires.; A tire dealer or distributor does not have a legal obligation to repor violations of these requirements, although we would appreciate if they did so. NHTSA prefers reports of violation to be in writing and addressed to: NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. If for some reason the report cannot be made in writing, a person who suspects a violation of the requirements should telephone Mr. James Gilkey at (202) 426- 2834. When the agency learns of a violation, normal enforcement procedures are begun. First, the agency investigates to see if the allegations of violations are true. If the investigation concludes that there are violations, proceedings to collect the civil penalties are instituted against the violator. As noted above, a tire dealer or distributor removing DOT number from tires would face penalties of up to a maximum of $800,000 if the dealer or distributor had removed the DOT number for 800 or more tires.; If you have any further questions on this subject please contact Mr Kratzke a the above address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel