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: nht75-6.19

DATE: 01/01/75 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: J.W. KENNEBECK -- EMISSIONS, SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kennebeck:

This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.

Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.

Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.

Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.

For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.

Sincerely,

ID: nht95-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 24, 1995

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Acting Chief Counsel

TO: Mark Warlick -- Four Winds International Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/8/95 LETTER FROM MARK WARLICK TO ED GLANCY

TEXT: Dear Mr. Warlick:

This responds to your fax asking about the meaning of "designated seating position" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You noted that the RVIA Handbook, dated April 23, 1991, states that "it is the NHTSA's position that, as a mi nimum, there must be as many [designated seating positions] as there are sleeping accommodations." You asked whether this statement is still in effect, and, if so, where you can find it in the Code of Federal Regulations. You also asked what defined are a makes up one sleeping position.

This will confirm that it continues to be NHTSA's position that, as a minimum, there must be as many designated seating positions as there are sleeping accommodations. This position is based on the definition of "designated seating position," which is s et forth at 49 CFR 571.3. Under that definition, the question of whether a position in a vehicle constitutes a designated seating position is dependent in part on whether the position "is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in m otion." If a manufacturer designs a vehicle to sleep a particular number of persons, e.g., six persons, it is logical to assume that those six persons will ride in the vehicle to their sleeping destination. Therefore, there must be at least six designat ed seating positions in the vehicle. A more complete discussion of this issue is presented on p. 23234 of the enclosed Federal Register notice (Final rule amending the definition of "designated seating position," April 19, 1979).

We do not have a definition of what area makes up one sleeping position. NHTSA would consider all available information to determine the number of sleeping positions in a vehicle. This would include the size of the sleeping accommodations, e.g., whethe r an area is large enough to accommodate more than one person, and advertising by the manufacturer and dealers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

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: nht73-4.5

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1973, in which you ask two questions regarding your company's practice of maintaining records on replacement parts for vehicles you manufacture. You appear to be under the impression that the retention of such records is necessary for purposes of certification to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

There are no requirements for the certification or replacement vehicle parts, unless the parts themselves are subject to a safety standard. At present, Standards Nos. 106, 108, 109, 116, 117, 205, 211, and 213 apply to items of motor vehicle equipment, and it is only with respect to replacement equipment subject to these standards that certification is required under Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Moreover, the NHTSA does not have specific requirements that manufacturers maintain records as to those equipment items that must be certified. Of course, good manufacturing practice would dictate that manufacturers maintain sufficient records to show that "due care" was exercised in manufacturing the items to conform to the standards. This is the legal standard applicable to manufacturers under the Safety Act. But it is for each manufacturer to determine for himself the extent to which such records should be maintained.

It is possible that any replacement equipment item, whether or not subject to a standard, may be found to contain a safety-related defect. The discovery of a defect by either the

manufacturer or the NHTSA will result in the manufacturer notifying purchasers of whom he has knowledge. (Section 113 of the Safety Act, 15 USC 1402) Here again, good manufacturing practice would require a manufacturer to maintain sufficient records that if a defect is found, the manufacturer will be able to determine the extent of his production in which the defect may exist. A manufacturer who has such records will be able thereby to minimize his burden of notification. However, as in the case of certification, the NHTSA does not have requirements for record retention that manufacturers must follow. It is for the manufacturer to determine the extent to which he should maintain records for these purposes.

ID: nht92-4.22

DATE: 09/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER, FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEM

TO: PAUL RICE -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-19-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO PAUL GOULD (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: I have recently been conducting dynamometer tests to FMVSS 121, here at Cwmbran, and I have some questions which I would like to pose to you as a matter of clarification on the actual meaning of "Average deceleration Rate" and its tolerance.

Taking the Brake Power Test, as an example, the FMVSS states: S5.4.2 "shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average of 9fpsps".

When conducting such tests on our dynamometers, we would carry these out in Constant Torque Mode. The dynamometer is given a deceleration to achieve, and the pressure is modulated around that figure depending on the frictional variations during the stop.

For the Brake Power Test, the dynamometer would attempt to achieve 2.7 m/s2 (in SI units) or 26.49%g.

A typical result obtained from out tests is: Stop 1 26.55%g Stop 2 26.17%g Stop 3 25.93%g Stop 4 26.10%g Stop 5 26.13%g Stop 6 26.05%g Stop 7 25.85%g Stop 8 25.96%g Stop 9 25.94%g Stop 10 25.63%g

This represents a control capability to within 5% (although on the low side).

The FMVSS does not however state this either as a minimum or maximum deceleration.

The points on which I require clarification are:

1) Results presented in this way appear to be lower than required for FMVSS, however, given that only a 5% shift exists are these acceptable, bearing in mind that the more crucial requirements are the pressure limitations and the Hot Stop deceleration rate.

2) It is my interpretation that the deceleration rate is only a Target in order to fade the Linings, and to within an error of 5%, our method is acceptable, rather than aim for a higher deceleration rate, which may mean much higher average deceleration than that stated in the FMVSS. This is also not strictly correct. I also wish to add that during the testing, the pressure utilised was well within the FMVSS demands.

I am sure that it is just a matter of interpretation, but it is vital to clear this up for future testing commitments.

ID: nht90-1.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/90

FROM: ROBERT W. GENZMAN -- US ATTORNEY FOR MIDDLE DISTRICT FLORIDA; DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842 NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS ; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR-WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW

TEXT: Robert W. Genzman, the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Florida, in conjunction with the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., announced today the filing of civil lawsuits charging six Florida corporations with violations of federal safety standards. The civil complaints allege that the named corporations installed tinted products on windows of motor vehicles in such a manner that less light was transmitted through the windows than federal safety standards permit.

Named as defendants in the Orlando Division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida are Blue Skies Projects, Inc., d/b/a Flying Window Tinters, of Orlando, and Shakespearin, Inc. of Holly Hill. Seminole Solar Systems, In c. of Largo; Allied Glass Tint, Inc. of Tampa, 3801, Inc., d/b/a Window Kote, and Solar Graphics, Inc., of St. Petersburg, were named as defendants in the Tampa Division or the Middle District of Florida.

Under National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration Acts standards, automobile glass must transmit at least 70 percent light through their surfaces. The civil complaints allege that the named defendants applied coated materials to the windows of motor vehicles in an amount resulting in transmission of light less than that permitted by the standard.

Mr. Genzman stated that the applicable federal standards were imposed to establish minimum visibility standards and to prevent accidents. The civil complaints seek to enjoin violation of the Act, and to impose $ 800,000.00 in civil penalties.

ID: Triplex

Mr. Paul Katz
President
Triplex Manufacturing Company
2700 West 50th Street
Chicago, IL 60632

Dear Mr. Katz:

This responds to your letter seeking our opinion whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, would preempt State laws seeking to establish requirements for insurers or repair businesses to install only vehicle lamps and lighting parts that are made by original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).

Your letter was prompted by the case of Avery v. State Farm, which we understand is now on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court, and various proposed state laws that would make distinctions between OEM and non-OEM parts. You asked two questions.

First, you asked whether OEM and non-OEM lamps and lighting parts are of "like kind and quality" under FMVSS No. 108. In your letter, you state that the term "like kind and quality" is a term that was used by the court in Avery v. State Farm. The term does not appear in the statutes we administer or in our regulations. We note that the requirements under FMVSS No. 108 for original equipment and non-original equipment are the same, and further that the Federal motor vehicle safety standards establish minimum performance requirements. Because FMVSS No. 108 allows a wide range of performance, and does not include specifications that apply to non-safety characteristics such as fit and finish, different lamps may not be of "like kind and quality" yet still comply with Federal requirements.

Second, you asked whether Federal law preempts states from establishing standards for vehicle lamps and lighting parts that are different than those of FMVSS No. 108 based solely on whether the manufacturer is an OEM or non-OEM. Federal law preempts states from enacting laws that impose different requirements from those mandated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. States may, however, regulate in various areas including enacting operational, inspection and insurance requirements. In this way, states may be able to establish rules with respect to the repair of crashed vehicles without acting in a manner that is inconsistent with Federal law.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Mr. Edward Glancy of this office (202-366-2992).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel
cc: Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq.

ref:108
d.1/21/04

ID: aiam5026

"Dear Mr. Turner: This responds to your letter asking about Federa Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices, with respect to the automatic extension of a stop signal arm. You were especially concerned with the interaction between a provision in Wisconsin's Administrative Code requiring activation of the stop signal arm under specified conditions and the stop signal arm activation requirements set forth in Standard No. 131. I have responded in detail to your questions below. Before I answer your question about your company's design for complying with both the Wisconsin Code and Standard No. 131, I would like to note that it does not appear that the Wisconsin regulation is inconsistent with Standard No. 131 with respect to the stop signal arm activation requirements. The Wisconsin Administrative Code states that: 'Any bus manufactured after January 1, 1978, shall have the stop signal arm controlled by the service door. The stop signal arm shall not become operational until the service door opens. The stop signal arm shall be installed in such a manner that it cannot be activated unless the alternating red lamps are in operation.' S5.5 of Standard No. 131 states that 'The stop signal arm shall be automatically extended in such a manner that it complies with S5.4.1, at a minimum whenever the red signal lamps required by S5.1.4 of Standard No. 108 are activated...' (emphasis added) Both the Wisconsin requirement and the requirement in Standard No. 131 tie the activation of the stop signal arm to the operation of the red signal lamps. In addition, the Wisconsin regulation also ties the activation of the stop signal arm to the opening of the service door. Based on this information, it appears that a manufacturer could comply with both Standard No. 131 and the Wisconsin regulation by designing its school buses so that opening the service door automatically activates both the stop signal arm and the red flashing lamps. If the Wisconsin regulation were interpreted in a way that does not tie the automatic extension of the stop signal arm to opening the service door, then there could be an inconsistency with Standard No. 131. You asked whether Blue Bird's system for activating the stop signal arm in accordance with Wisconsin's requirement complies with the requirements of Standard No. 131. You explained that, on its school buses sold in Wisconsin, Blue Bird provides a system by which the alternating red flashing lamps are activated by a driver controlled manual switch and the stop signal arm is activated by opening the service door. Under this system, the red flashing lamps are activated before the service door has been opened and before the stop signal arm has been extended. Based on the information provided in your letter, we conclude that Blue Bird's system would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 131. Standard No. 131 explicitly requires the stop signal arm to be automatically deployed whenever the red signal lamps required by Standard No. 108 are activated. As explained in the final rule adopting Standard No. 131, 'any system of activation is permissible provided the stop signal arm is extended during, at least, the entire time that the red warning lamps are activated.' (56 FR 20363, 20368, May 3, 1991). As described in your letter, the system your company has developed for its Wisconsin school buses has the red warning lamps activated by a manual switch and the activation of those lamps does not activate the stop signal arm. Hence, that system does not comply with the explicit requirement of Standard No. 131 that the stop signal arm be automatically extended whenever the red warning lamps are activated. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";