ID: aiam4269

Dear Mr. Torrey: Thank you for your letters of August 13, and 26, 1986, concerning ho the requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, apply to glazing materials installed in the side windows of some New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) buses. As explained below, the information you provided in your letters and in your phone conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff and the information provided by NYCTA in a June 19, 1986 letter to the agency indicates the glazing materials installed in the NYCTA buses do not comply with the marking requirements of the standard.; You explained in your letter that the glazing material used in the sid and standee windows in the buses is Lexan sheet, which is a plastic material manufactured by General Electric. According to your letter the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for 'AS-5' glazing materials. However, the material apparently was not marked as 'AS-5' material, but may have instead been marked 'AS-4/6.' (Information provided to the agency by the NYCTA in June 1986 indicates that the windows did not contain any 'AS' number. At the time of your phone conversation with Mr. Oesch, you had not been able to confirm what markings, if any, had been placed on the glazing material by General Electric).; Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirement fo glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as 'items' in the standard). Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set AS-5 glazing materials, it can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, windows to the immediate right and left of the driver and the rearmost windows if used for driving visibility.; In addition to setting performance requirements for different items o glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of S6 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that 'item' of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information the agency has received about the markings on the glazing installed in the NYCTA buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.; Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to th applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, General Electric is required by Part 575 of our regulations to file a report with the agency providing additional details about the noncompliance and General Electric's plans to remedy the noncompliance. As you requested Mr. Oesch, I am also enclosing a copy of the agency's regulation concerning the filing of a petition for a determination that a noncompliance is inconsequential.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4204

Dear Mr. McConnell: Thank you for your letter of July 31, 1986, inquiring about the Federa safety standards that apply to roll-up window shades designed to be attached to a vehicle's window by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.; Some background information on how Federal motor vehicle safety law and regulations affect your product may be helpful. Our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects. As explained below, installation of products in new and used vehicles would be affected by our regulations. In addition, any manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the requirements of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with noncompliances or defects related to motor vehicle safety.; We have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, *Glazin Materials*, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).; No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and othe sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in *new* vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.; After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicl are affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Violation of the 'render inoperative' provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may themselve alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.; I am returning, under separate cover, the two samples you provided th agency. If you need further information, please let me know.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1103

Dear Mr. Ullenberg: This is in reply to your letter of March 6, 1973, in which you as several questions regarding the certification of trucks with concrete mixers. You state that you supply a chassis to the Rex Chainbelt factory in Milwaukee, where a concrete mixer is installed. The combined unit is then shipped to a Rex dealer in Puerto Rico who sells the complete unit to a user. You provide weight ratings for the vehicle as follows: a gross vehicle weight rating, based on axle capacity, of 68,000 pounds, a rating, based on the tire capacity, of 56,740 pounds, and a gross weight of 66,800 pounds. Based on these figures you ask (1) Whether the truck can be completed in this fashion and shipped by you to Puerto Rico, (2) Whether the dealer in Puerto Rico can promise to install larger tires at a later date, (3) Whether Rex Chainbelt can certify the chassis at 68,000 pounds gross weight rating, if the dealer in Puerto Rico notifies Rex that he will change the tires at a later date, (4) Whether the chassis manufacturer can certify the truck chassis for a greater capacity than the lightest component if the local dealer or customer will notify him that they will bring the chassis to the higher certified level, and (5) What penalties can be imposed if a dealer or user does not make changes he has promised to make.; It appears to us from your letter that essentially the same issu underlies all your questions, that is, whether a final- stage manufacturer in completing a vehicle may place on it tires that are not sufficient to carry the vehicle at its gross vehicle weight rating, and elicit a promise from either a dealer or user that the latter will change the tires.; A truck that is equipped at the time of its manufacture with tire inadequate in terms of load rating to carry the truck at its gross vehicle weight rating would be considered by NHTSA to contain a safety related defect. The manufacturer of such a vehicle is subject to the provisions of section 113 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1402), which requires that notification of the defect be sent to first purchasers and dealers. A truck which was labeled with a gross vehicle weight rating below the minimum specified in 49 CFR 567(g)(3) would be in violation of the Certification regulations, and the person affixing such a label would be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions pursuant to section 108, 109, and 110 of the Safety Act (15 U.S. C. 1397, 1398, 1399). The Certification regulations (49 CFR Parts 567, 568) require weight ratings, in cases of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages, to be based on the vehicle as completed by the final-stage manufacturer. That manufacturer is not permitted to delegate his responsibility to a dealer or user.; The NHTSA has made an exception in the case of vehicles shipped withou tires, or vehicles shipped with temporary tires that are not intended to be used on the vehicle apart from the limited purpose of shipment. Your letter contains no implication that your case in within this exception.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1857

Dear Senator Hartke: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1975, asking for detaile consideration of Mr. David L. Daugherty's concern that final-stage manufacturers will be unable to fulfill their certification responsibilities on air-braked trucks built after March 1, 1975. As you know, Standard No. 121, *Air brake systems*, became effective for trucks and buses on March 1, 1975.; Mr. Daugherty has raised one of the most critical aspects of truc manufacturing in assuring a minimum brake performance level. Unlike passenger cars, the vast majority of heavy trucks are manufactured by adding specialized bodies or equipment to a chassis-cab. These additions affect the center of gravity, dynamic load transferral, and other characteristics of the truck which determine in large part its stopping capability.; As a practical matter, meaningful dynamic brake performance standard cannot be developed without regulating the truck as it is completed and sold.; The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recognize that Standard No. 121, as the first comprehensive performance requirement for trucks, will limit somewhat the freedom of manufacturers to modify brake systems and mount bodies without regard for their effect on braking. We consider the increased care exercised by final-stage manufacturers to be one of the most significant benefits of the standard.; Mr. Daugherty correctly points out that chassis-cab manufacturer released the necessary information on their chassis only a short time before March 1, 1975. The two trade associations for final-stage manufacturers petitioned for delay of the standard for this reason. After careful consideration of possible relief, NHTSA denied those petitions. It was concluded that every form of relief had obvious drawbacks and would not achieve the objective of final-stage manufacturers to receive 121-type chassis to use in re-engineering their body and equipment installations. It was concluded that if the standard for completed vehicles were suspended, chassis manufacturers would no longer have to provide incomplete vehicles with the necessary equipment and final-stage manufacturers would be unable to develop solutions for their engineering problems. Even if incomplete vehicles could be certified and completed vehicles could be exempt, serious danger would exist when modifications of the new systems were undertaken without consideration of the handling consequences.; I would like to point out that the March 1, 1975, effective date doe not require an instantaneous ('one day') change for final-stage manufacturers. Part 568 of our regulations (49 CFR Part 568) permits a final-stage manufacturer to use the date of completion of the chassis as the date of certification of the completed vehicle. This means that the chassis manufactured prior to March 1 may be completed at any later period without meeting Standard No. 121. It is not until final-stage manufacturers begin to receive the chassis which have just started to be produced that they will have to complete vehicles in conformity with the standard. They now have data on the new chassis, and thus have a period in which to make modifications. Several manufacturers have large inventories of pre-121 chassis and it should be several months before all trucks will be completed in conformity with Standard No. 121.; Thank you for your continuing interest in motor vehicle safety. Sincerely, James B. Gregory, Administrator

ID: nht94-2.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5 .3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 19, 1994

FROM: S. Greiff -- PARS, Passive Ruckhaltesysteme GmbH

TO: Chief Counsel -- US Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To S. Greiff (A42; Std. 208)

TEXT: Per Fax: 001/202-366-3820

Your "Laboratory Test Procedure For FMVSS 208/212/219/301"

Gentleman:

PARS is a company developing occupant restraint systems for the world wide automotive industry. One of our major topics is the development of airbag systems.

For development and validation of the restraint systems we own a Barrier Impact Test Facility which was built up in 1993 new.

Our runway is 80 m (260 feet's) long. The velocity tolerance up to 60 kph is +/- 0.1 kph.

In your Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS testing, a minimum runway length of 500 feet is requested.

We would like to ask you for an interpretation of your "500 feet requirement".

It would be much appreciated, if we could get an answer by fax.

Our fax no. is: 01149/6023/942-133

Thank you very much for your efforts in advance.

Sincerely yours

ID: nht94-7.12

DATE: April 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Eric T. Stewart -- Engineering Manager, Mid Bus (Lima, OH)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/93 from John Womack to Thomas D. Turner; Also attached to letter dated 3/17/94 from Eric T. Stewart to Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC 9792)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of March 17, 1994, regarding a final rule published November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413) amending Standard No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release. You requested clarification of the width requirement in S5.5.3(c) for retroreflective tape.

You are correct that there was a discrepancy concerning the size of the tape caused by the metric conversion in the final rule. Enclosed is a copy of a July 7, 1993 letter to Mr. Thomas D. Turner of the Blue Bird Body Company which discusses this issue. As explained in that letter, we plan to issue a correction notice of the November 2, 1992 rule that would specify a minimum size of 2.5 cm for the tape. Until the correction is issued, we will not take enforcement measures regarding tape size against a manufacturer who uses 1 inch wide retroreflective tape.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact us at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 3235o

Mr. M. Iwase
Technical Administration Dept.
Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Shizuoka Works
500, Kitawaki
Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken
JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is to provide you with a clarification of my letter to you dated March l6, l988. Your second question was whether the minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signal lamps and tail/stop lamps is required on a rear lighting array for motorcycles. I responded that "The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to comply with this requirement."

In actuality, the agency has required this separation only where a single motorcycle stoplamp/taillamp is mounted on the vertical centerline, and not when dual lamps are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline, the configuration depicted in your letter of January 25, 1988. Therefore, I am advising you that there is no legal requirement that the 4-inch separation distance be maintained in the configurations you depicted, and that we appreciate your continuing efforts to understand and comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

I enclose a copy of a letter from this Office dated November 2l, l984, which explains our views on motorcycle rear lighting configurations in more detail.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure Ref:l08 d:l2/l/88

ID: nht69-2.1

DATE: 03/28/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: The Hail Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 24, 1969, to the Office of Standards Preparation, concerning the proposed lighting equipment on your dump trailers.

The lamps and reflectors shown on your drawing 701b1907 dated February 20, 1969, appear to be in conformance with the requirements of Standard No. 108 with the following exceptions:

1. The required license plate lamp is not shown.

2. The minimum mounting height for reflectors is 15 inches.

3. With respect to maximum mounting zones for lamps and reflectors, the limiting dimensions of 16, 30, and 24 inches indicated on your drawing appear to be too liberal for a trailer with essentially square corners.

With reference to Notes 2 and 3 on your drawing, certain restrictions as specified in paragraph S3.3 of Standard No. 108 are applicable for combination lamps.

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 no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from (Illegible Word) responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: nht70-2.54

DATE: 10/28/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: TVR Engineering Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 14, 1970, to the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau forwarding information sheets on the TVR Vixen. I am enclosing copies of the Bureau's Consumer Information Regulations (49 CFR Part 575). The substantive provisions, @ 575.101 on vehicle stopping distance, @ 575.102 on tire reserve load, and @ 575.106 on acceleration and passing ability, require the furnishing of specific information in a format which is in the form set out in the regulations. The information sheets which you have provided fall short of these requirements in both form and substance. For example, @ 575.101 requires furnishing information on the minimum stopping distance, expressed in feet, for the particular vehicle, from a particular speed, at specified loads, with the braking system in a specified condition. The information provided by you in this regard is incomplete, and is not in the form specified. In addition, the regulations require the information to describe and be valid for each of the vehicles with which it is provided.

Please study the enclosed regulations carefully and forward to us complying consumer information within the near future. Let us know if you need further assistance.

ENCLOSURES