ID: nht95-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donnell W. Morrison

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/25/95 LETTER FROM DONNELL W. MORRISON TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Morrison:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1995, asking for a clarification of the letter of April 10 to you from the former Chief Counsel, Philip Recht. He explained Standard No. 108's requirements for the location of rear lighting on wide vehicles.

As the letter stated, identification lamps are to be mounted "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." You speak of having seen "semitrailers on the highway with all the rear lights at bed level" including clearance and identification lamps. As the letter also stated, the determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, to be made in its certification that the vehicle meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA will not question that determinatio n unless it appears clearly erroneous.

Without further information on the semitrailers you saw, we cannot judge whether mounting the clearance and identification lamps at bed level was a clearly erroneous determination by the trailer's manufacturer. There are some configurations where there is no header on which to mount lamps and the top of the doors approaches the top of the vehicle. In those configurations, we would not contest the manufacturer's determination that mounting the lamps at bed level was "as close to the top of the vehicle as practicable." On the other hand, the semitrailers you saw might have failed to conform to Standard No. 108.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you. If you have any further questions you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

ID: nht95-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs, Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors; Signature by F. Laux

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request for FMVSS 205 Interpretation; USG 3183

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MILFORD BENNETT (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS 205. Specifically, General Motors seeks the agency's concurrence that a vehicle equipped with a particular rear window sunshade meets the light transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 .

General Motors plans to offer a rear window sunshade in a near-future Cadillac model. The sunshade is a screen-like device that significantly reduces the light and heat load entering through the backlite. In its raised position, the sunshade covers app roximately 90% of the backlite area, and the light transmissibility through the combined backlite and sunshade is less than 70%. In its retracted position, the sunshade is stowed in the panel shelf area below the backlite, such that no portion of the bac klite is obscured. A driver operated switch on the instrument panel is used to electrically raise and lower the sunshade.

FMVSS 205 requires a minimum of 70% light transmissibility through glazing that is requisite for driving visibility. The agency has historically interpreted the backlite of passenger cars to be requisite for driving visibility. General Motors seeks the Chief Counsel's interpretation that the proposed sunshade comports with the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205. Our reasons for believing that a vehicle equipped with the sunshade would continue to comply with FMVSS 205 are summarized as follow s:

* The rear window sunshade would have no adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. As with conventional windshield sunvisors, drivers can be expected to utilize the sunshade in a way that will maximize, rather than diminish, driving safety and comfort. Wi th the sunshade in its raised position, trailing vehicles and other objects are readily visible through the screen mesh. Driver and passenger side outside rearview mirrors further provide for rearward visibility, comparable to other passenger carrying v ehicles (light trucks, vans, multipurpose passenger vehicles) which are not required by FMVSS 205 to have 70% light transmittance in the backlite area.

* The sunshade is not glazing material, nor is it in contact with glazing material. FMVSS 205 states that: "This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment."

* The rear window sunshade is fully analogous to conventional windshield sunvisors. In both cases, the driver-selectable device can be positioned in a way that reduces effective transmissibility below 70%, and then easily stowed when not needed to resto re full transmittance.

* There is a well established international precedent for rear window sunshades. European and Japanese regulatory authorities have explicitly recognized and accepted these devices.

General Motors is aware of previous Chief Counsel interpretations stating that the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 must be met with a rear window sunscreen in position. (Reference Ms. Erika Jones letter to Mr. T. E. McConnell dated September 22, 1986, and Ms. Erika Jones letter to Ms. Susan B. House dated December 22, 1985.) We believe there is a critical distinction between the products the agency has previously commented on and the rear window sunshade GM contemplates. Specifically, the e arlier products were apparently tinting materials applied to the backlite, or shade devices that physically contacted the backlite via attaching hardware. By virtue of being in physical contact with the backlite, these earlier sunscreening products coul d be interpreted as being part of the backlite. The rear window sunshade GM plans to install will not be attached to the backlite in either the raised or stowed position, and therefore is clearly not part of the backlite glazing subject to FMVSS 205.

We would appreciate a favorable response at the agency's earliest convenience. In order to accommodate our product plans for the sunshade device, we would like to obtain a response by July, 1995, if possible. If there is any additional information we ca n provide to help expedite the agency's review, please contact Mr. Philip Horton (810-947-1738), Mr. Richard Humphrey of our Washington office (775-5071), or me (810-947-0149).

Thank you.

ID: nht95-2.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 22, 1995

FROM: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede E Stabilimenti

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for legal interpretation, FMVSS 205.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/4/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO GIUSEPPE DI VITO (A43; STD. 205; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Sir,

INTRODUCTION

Siv hereby request an interpretation for the testing of a Glass-Plastic glazing item 15A, FMVSS 205. We respectfully request the NHTSA's response at the soonest possible date.

PURPOSE

We ask by this letter for your interpretation involving testing of glazing item AS 15A, Glass Plastic (Annealed Glass-Plastic for use in all position in a Vehicle except for Windshield). We request an interpretation of whether or not test no.5 (bake ANSI Z.26.1-1977) may substitute test no. 4 (boil, ANSI Z26.1-1977) for certification of compliance of that glazing.

BACKGROUND

BMW requested our company to develop a security glazing made of:

1. Door glass: Glass - Polyurethane - Polycarbonate, as per enclosed sketch no. 1. 2. Rear Quarterlite: Glass - Polyvinylbutirale, as per enclosed sketch no. 2.

Both these glass plastic parts have an internal safety spall shield to protect occupants against facial injuries coming form glass particles when the side window is broken or in case of accident. This product meets all the ECE R 43 compliance tests, whi ch include a 100 degrees C (212 degrees F) bake test. The product meets all the applicable test of FMVSS 205 except test n degrees 4 (boil test), which is not compatible with adhesion of the internal spall shield.

This type of glazing will be installed on a limited number of 1996 BMW cars to be sold in Europe and USA. BMW and SIV believe that this spall shield is an important safety innovation, whose absence would not allow introduction of these side windows into the USA.

We expect your urgent answer and thank you in advance.

Attachment Bar graphs - security glazing (omitted).

ID: nht95-2.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 23, 1995

FROM: Lance Tunick -- Vehicle Services Consulting, Inc.

TO: Orron Kee -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for interpretation of 49 CFR 575.101

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/26/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO LANCE TUNICK (REDBOOK 2; PART 575; STD. 105; STD. 135)

TEXT: Dear Orron:

This is to request that NHTSA clarify how it interprets the requirements of 49 CFR 575.101 (disclosure of vehicle stopping distance) when a manufacturer uses newly promulgated FMVSS 135 to certify its vehicle. The question arises because 575.101(c) refe rs to FMVSS 105, but makes no mention of FMVSS 135.

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht95-2.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Terry M. Habshey -- Oxytire Incorporated

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/6/95 LETTER FROM TERRY M. HABSHEY TO PHILIP RECHT (OCC 10785)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Habshey:

This responds to your March 6, 1995 letter to Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff in which you requested a "new D.O.T. number." As discussed below, we are unable to provide you a tire man ufacturer's identification mark since the operations you perform on tires are not sufficient to make you the manufacturer of the tires.

You explained that your company is a global exporter of tires, particularly to third world countries, but that you intend to distribute tires domestically in the future. You stated that you obtain new tires from different manufacturers consisting of ori ginal equipment overruns, blems, etc., and that by a new process you intend to remove "most" of the information from the tire sidewalls. The new process includes removing a thin layer of rubber from the tire sidewall, then vulcanizing a layer of new rubb er onto the sidewall. The new layer will contain a new "registered" trade name, logo, and "identifying marks along with the size, safety information, mounting instructions, maximum and minimum inflating instructions, etc." You emphasized that all tires will be new and meet "all minimum standards established by the Department of Transportation."

Before addressing your request, let me first provide some background information. Chapter 301 of Title 49, U.S. Code (hereinafter Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety st andards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into the United States. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufact urers certify that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs effective on the date of manufacture. In the case of tires, manufacturers reflect that certification by molding the letters "DOT" into or onto the sidewalls of all their tires manufactu red for sale in the United States.

The FMVSSs are not applicable to tires intended solely for export, labeled for export on the tires and on the outside of the container, and exported. See 49 U.S.C. @ 30112(b)(3); 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.7(d)). Accordingly, you are free to export any tires you want, whether or not they comply with the FMVSSs and after whatever modifications you make to them.

That is not the case, however, with tires distributed for sale in the United States. FMVSS No. 109, New pneumatic tires and FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims, specify performance standards and labeling requirements for new passenger car tires and r ims. FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars and FMVSS No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars, specify performance standards and labeling requirements applicable to tires and rims for vehicles other than passenger cars. 49 CFR Part 574, Tire identification and recordkeeping, requires new tire manufacturers to permanently mold into or onto one tire sidewall a tire identification number (TIN) and specifies methods by which new tire manufacturers and new tire brand name owners shall maintain records of tire purchasers. 49 CFR Part 575.104, Uniform tire quality grading standards (UTQGS), requires new motor vehicle and new tire manufacturers and brand name owners to provide informat ion to consumers concerning the relative performance of passenger car tires in the areas of treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance. The UTQGS grades are also required to be molded into or onto the tire sidewall.

The labeling requirements specified in the regulations referred to above apply to the actual tire manufacturers and/or brand name owners, and the required information, including the DOT symbol and the TIN, must appear on all new tires before they can be sold to their first retail purchasers. A tire distributor or dealer cannot legally remove any of the required information from new tire sidewalls. The required information on new tires is intended for safety purposes, purchaser information, and to enab le this agency to identify the manufacturer in the event of a noncompliance or defect in a tire line or lot.

A "manufacturer" is defined in 49 U.S.C. @ 30102(a)(5) as one who manufactures or assembles motor vehicles or equipment or one who imports motor vehicles or equipment for resale. The operations you describe would not be sufficient to make you the manufa cturer of the tires in question. According to your letter, you would, for marketing reasons, remove a thin layer of the surface area of the sidewalls of the tires so that most of the existing information is removed. You would then apply a new thin laye r of rubber containing new information. Your operations would thus not be changing the basic tire as such but simply changing the labeling. A change in labeling would not change who manufactured the tire. Thus, since you would not be a manufacturer of tires, you may not obtain a manufacturer's identification mark in accordance with 49 CFR @ 574.6. Only tire manufacturers or retreaders may obtain that mark.

49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b) prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and/or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with applicable FMVSSs unless that individual reasonably believes that the vehicle or equipment will not be used when the device or element is inoperative. Thus, removal of the labeling information required to be marked on tire sidewalls in accordance w ith the standards and regulations discussed above could be a violation of @ 30122(b), which could subject the violator to civil penalties of up to $ 1000 per violation, or up to $ 800,000 for a series of related violations.

In summary, the Safety Act does not apply to tires intended solely for export. Thus, those tires are not required to comply with any FMVSSs. However, all new or retreaded tires sold or imported into the United States for sale must comply with all applic able FMVSSs and regulations as discussed above. Distributors and dealers may not remove any of the labeling information required to be marked on new tires by the actual manufacturers and/or brand name owners of those tires. Removal of that information c ould make inoperative an element of design on those tires, which could constitute a violation of 49 U.S.C. @ 30122(b).

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you need additional information or have further questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.95

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 24, 1995

FROM: Denise Jones -- President/Co-owner, Nimi Manufacturing, Inc.

TO: Dee Fujita -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DENISE JONES (A43; STD. 213)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Fujita:

As we discussed on the phone, attached is a xerox copy of the brochure describing our product. This pillow is designed specifically for use with booster car seats to provide support and comfort while the child is sleeping.

Approximately one year ago, I spoke with you on the phone regarding Federal regulations governing the flame retardancy of the fabric used to manufacture our product. At that time, your response was that there are no codes to govern this accessory.

We are now taking this product to the marketplace. Specifically, our local Wal-Mart store has purchased our pillow, however, we need to provide them with your response to us in writing. Would you please direct your reply to NiMi Manufacturing, Inc. so that we may provide retailers such as Wal-Mart with a copy. Their only concern was regarding the regulations of flame retardancy.

I certainly appreciate the time you have taken to talk with me, and the cooperation you have shown. NiMi is a very, very small business. Needless to say, your help and expediency is greatly appreciated, especially now that a major retailer is carrying our product. Perhaps we won't be small too much longer!

Please call me at (615) 636-5337 when you receive this. I'll be glad to answer any further questions you may have. Thanks again.

Attachment Brochure omitted.

ID: nht95-2.96

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Stuart Sacks -- Tradepro, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 1/25/95 LETTER FROM STUART SACKS TO PHILIP R. RECHT

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sacks:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Philip Recht, our former Chief Counsel, in which you stated that you are considering importing tires from the Hangzhou General Rubber Factory, which has been assigned NHTSA manufacturer identification number 7D. You s tated that the tires do not display the "molded D.O.T. code numbers," and that Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic tires for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFR 571.119), "clearly does not require [DOT code n umbers] for non-passenger tires." Your reading of FMVSS No. 119 is not correct.

I assume from your letter that you are considering importing only non-passenger car tires. This letter, then, will address only the labeling requirements for non-passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 119 and 49 CFR 574. I further assume that by "DOT code numbers" you mean the tire identification number (TIN) required by 49 CFR 574.5.

49 U.S. Code @ 30112 provides that no person may sell in or import into the United States any new motor vehicle or new item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable FMVSSs. With respect to non-passenger car tires, which are it ems of motor vehicle equipment, section S6.5 of FMVSS No. 119 requires specific items of information to be marked on the tire sidewalls. Those markings must be no less than 0.078 inch high and must be "raised above or sunk below the tire surface" a speci fied distance. Among other things, the markings must include the TIN (S6.5(b)).

Paragraph S6.5(b) of FMVSS No. 119 requires the TIN to comply with part 574. Part 574.5 requires that the TIN be permanently molded into or onto tire sidewalls as specified in Figure 1 of Part 574, and specifies what information the TIN must contain. Th e TIN can be branded into or onto the sidewalls of retreaded tires after the fact, but not new tires. On new tires, the TIN must be molded into or onto the tire sidewalls by the original manufacturer.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 25, 1995

FROM: Kenneth Zawlocki

TO: Chief Counsel

TITLE: Re: US DOT - NHTSA - FMVSS218

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/29/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KENNETH ZAWLOCKI (REDBOOK 2; STD. 218)

TEXT: It is my interpretation of FMVSS218 that the Helmet Penetration Test is for the outer shell of the helmet and the Impact Attenuation Test is for the inner proctectant. Of course the Retention Test is for the straps that hold the helmet on the head. I c annot find any specifications as to what kind or how much material is to be used in the manufacturing of said helmets. Also, there is no specific language to the effect the helmet may not be covered with materials such as wigs, caps, cloth, etc. Theref ore, would you please clarify the following points for me:

1. Is the Penetration Test (S7.2) for testing the penetration of the outer shell?

2. Is the Impact Attenuation Test (S7.14) for testing types of impact material to prevent head injuries?

3. Is the Retention Test (S7.3) for testing straps that retain the brim of the helmet onto the head?

4. Are there any specifications in FMVSS218 as to what type and how much material can be used in the manufacturing of helmets?

5. Are there any stipulations in FMVSS218 that you cannot decorate a helmet with any material (leather, cloth), wigs, flowers, decals, hats, etc.?

I look forward to your reply; thank you for your assistance in this matter.

ID: nht95-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 30, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Barbara Bailey -- Administrative Assistant, Camp Berachah Christian Retreat Center

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM BARBARA BAILEY TO WALTER MYERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Bailey:

This responds to your letter and telephone call to Walter Myers of this office asking two questions about new 15-passenger vans that Camp Berachah leased from a dealer. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You first asked whether we require the leased vans to comply with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for school buses. You also asked whether we require the vans to comply with those FMVSSs if Camp Berachah loaned or subleased them to a school. Subject to a few considerations, the answer to both questions is no.

Some background information on our school bus regulations would be helpful. Our regulations require any person selling or leasing a new vehicle to sell or lease a vehicle that meets all FMVSSs applicable to that vehicle. Accordingly, persons selling or leasing a new school bus must sell or lease a vehicle that meets the FMVSSs applicable to school buses. Under 49 U.S.C. @ 30101, et seq. (referred to as Safety Act), a school bus is any vehicle that carries 11 or more persons and which is likely to be significantly used to transport students to or from school or related events. Thus, persons selling or leasing a new vehicle that carries 11 or more persons and which is likely to be significantly used to carry students is selling or leasing a new schoo l bus. That means that the new vehicle must meet the school bus FMVSSs.

The FMVSSs apply only to new vehicles prior to sale to the first retail purchaser. The onus of complying with the school bus regulations is mainly on the seller or dealer to ensure that each new school bus it sells or leases has been certified to the sc hool bus FMVSSs. The purchaser, on the other hand, is not subject to such constraints. Under our school bus regulations, the purchaser is free to use any vehicle to transport school children. That is because this agency does not regulate the use of ve hicles once they have been sold at retail.

Turning to your questions, we answer no to your first question based on the following. It was unclear from your letter whether Camp Berachah is connected with a school. In directing NHTSA to issue its school bus regulations, Congress considered buses u sed to transport children to camps connected with schools to be subject to the school bus FMVSSs. However, you clarified the nature of Camp Berachah in your conversation with Mr. Myers. You said that Camp Berachah is independent from any school and is not in any way affiliated with a school. Based on that information, Camp Berachah does not appear to be a school.

Thus, our school bus regulations do not require the leasing of complying school buses for Camp Berachah purposes.

In your second question, you asked whether the new leased vans had to comply with the school bus FMVSSs if Camp Berachah lent, rented or subleased them to a school. The answer depends on whether the vans are significantly used for pupil transportation, and if so, whether the dealer knew or should have known of such use. New vans that are likely to be significantly used to transport school children would be school buses, and the dealer leasing the new van is required to lease certified school buses. U se of the vans on a one-time or occasional basis would not constitute significant use as a school bus. However, if Camp Berachah were to sublease the vans to a school for long-term use, we believe the use of those vans for school transportation would be significant within the meaning of the Safety Act. Accordingly, the leasing company could not lease a new van for this purpose.

You should also note that the states have the authority to regulate the use of vehicles by motorists. Thus, although NHTSA does not require the sale or use of complying school buses in the situations you described, Washington does have such authority. You may wish to contact the state director of pupil transportation to learn more about any state requirements applicable to vehicles used as school buses.

In closing, we would like to note that school buses are one of the safest forms of transportation in this country. We therefore strongly recommend that all 15-passenger vans that are used to transport school children be certified as meeting the school b us safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-2.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1995

FROM: John C. Golden -- Product Manager, Lighting and Electrical, Federal Mogul Corp.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 10/16/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO JOHN C. GOLDEN (A43; VSA 108(a)(2)(A); STD. 125)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack,

We are seeking some clarification on F.M.V.S.S. 125 and how it relates to a letter you wrote Mr. John G. Klinge, Executive Vice President, Visibility Systems Company dated 12 August, 1994.

We market a wide variety of lighting and safety devices under the brand name Signal-State. Mr. Klinge provided us a copy of your written response to his inquiry before we chose to go ahead and market his product under our name.

Now, Mr. Klinge would like us to market a three-pack version of his battery operated safety strobe device (an equilateral triangle measuring 3 1/2" on each side) that is, in our opinion, specifically designed for use on DOT warning triangles. We think i t is a terrific idea. However, before we market this item we have one question:

The requirement for warning triangles is for 17" (minimum) leg length and 2" (minimum) leg width. The red reflector must be 1/2" (minimum) width. Does the mounting of one of these devices (as pictured, attached) take away minimum reflective area suc h that it would render the warning triangles illegal or ineffective?

Our greatest fear is the possibility of a motorist coming over a hill on a dark night . . . and over that hill is a broken down vehicle . . . with triangles properly deployed . . . but with a Lightman on top of each . . . with dead batteries.

If you think we should contact the Federal Highway Administration for clarification, please be kind enough to direct me to the proper person.

(Brochure Omitted.)