ID: deyoung.ztv

Mr. Jack W. DeYoung
Tumbleweed Trucks, Inc.
318 Kwanzan Drive
Lynden, WA 98264

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

This responds to your letter dated November 15, 2002, and your letter of November 19, 2002, which responded to my letter to you dated November 14, 2002. I regret that your letters were misplaced and that you had to contact us several times.

The subject matter of our correspondence is the flash rate of hazard warning signal flashers. Your letter of November 15 (written before you had received my November 14 reply to your letter of October 18) stated your understanding that the agencys interpretation to Robert A. Belcher in 1980 was applicable to your flasher as well. Mr. Belcher had developed a dual mode hazard flasher, which flashed at a constant rate in one mode. In the other, or "distress," mode, the flasher alternated between a short flash and a long flash to simulate the international distress signal "S.O.S."We understood that the flash rate of the emergency distress signal mode would be 71 flashes per minute, and we informed Mr. Belcher that if it maintained this flash rate and met other requirements of J945, "it should qualify" (our letter of October 30, 1980). We further informed Representative Norm Shumway on July 30, 1984, with respect to Mr. Belchers device, that "We find nothing in Standard No. 108 that precludes a dual mode flash for hazard flashers, provided that the flash rates chosen [comply], adding that "current flashers, of course, operate at a constant rate." We do not appear to have provided any other interpretations regarding flashers operating at a rate other than constant.

On November 19, you replied to my letter of November 14, stating that your system was designed to produce 120 cycles per minute and that you did not agree with our calculations which indicated a rate of more than 120 cycles per minute. I would note here that, in contrast to the Belcher system which operated at a flash rate of only 71 per minute, the 120 flashes per minute that you ascribe to your system is the maximum that the standard permits.

As I mentioned in my letter of November 14, SAE Recommended Practice J945, "Vehicular Hazard Warning Signal Flasher," February 1966, is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108 as the Federal requirement for flashers. Paragraph 3 of SAE J945 specifies that the "flashing rate . . . shall be measured after the flashers have been operating for a minimum of five consecutive cycles and shall be an average of at least three consecutive cycles." (our emphasis). You are correct in your remark that in our calculation we took "an arithmetic average of three flash rates without considering the amount of time each uses," and that this was an "unweighted average." We do not read the word "average" in SAE J945 as meaning anything other than an arithmetic average. Thus, in our opinion, compliance with Standard No. 108 requires that the flash rate be met over an arithmetic average of any number of three or more consecutive cycles that may be chosen after a minimum of five consecutive cycles have occurred since activation of the signal. Thus, your flash rate increases to 144.3 per minute if we measure the rate over 4 cycles, and to 148.7 per minute if we measure the rate over 5 cycles.

Your letter of November 15 also asked for confirmation that it would be permissible for a truck or bus owner to install your flasher even if it did not meet Standard No. 108s flash rate requirements. Paragraph S5.8.1 of Standard No. 108 requires that lighting equipment manufactured to replace original equipment be designed to conform to the standard. We regard your device as a flasher intended to replace a flasher manufactured in accordance with SAE J945. Thus, its flash rate must be within the parameters specified in SAE J945. The flash rate exceeds the maximum rate specified. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), a person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or introduce in interstate commerce any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard and is not certified as meeting that standard. Under 49 U.S.C. 30165, a person who violates Section 30112(a) is liable for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation, up to $15,000,000 for a related series of violations. Thus, we do not anticipate that you will manufacture and sell your device, and the question of installation is moot.

If you have any questions, you may contact Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.8/7/03

ID: 1985-02.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Frederick B. Locker, Esq. -- Locker, Greenberg and Brainin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Frederick B. Locker, Esq. Locker Greenberg & Brainin, Esq. One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10001

This responds to your recent letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a belt which is attached to and is not easily removed from a movable shield is an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c), and may therefore be attached when the restraint is tested in test configuration II of Standard No. 213. Such a belt is an integral prt of the movable shield and may attached during test configuration II.

Your client, Collier-Keyworth, has designed a child restraint that integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and the movable shield in a continuous connection, with the bottom of the crotch strap webbing intended to be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is positioned in the restraint. As described in your letter and shown in the photographs enclosed therewith, the crotch strap portion of the webbing is considered an integral part of the movable shield, because it is formed as a unit with that shield. Hence, section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213 allows you to attach the crotch strap portion of the webbing to the base of the seat during configuration II testing.

I suggest, however, that Collier-Keyworth incorporate into the restraint some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled into the base of the seat. This suggestion is based on past experience with child restraints which have both a movable shield and a crotch strap which must be buckled to adequately protect the child.

In the late 1970's there were several child restraint designs which had a crotch strap permanently attached to the base of the seat and a movable shield which lowered in front of the child. The designers of these restraints intended that the crotch strap be attached to the shield to properly restain the child. However, such restraints were often misused by consumers who did not attach the crotch strap to the shield. NHTSA was concerned that in the event of a crash, a child occupant would submarine partly or completely out of restraints whose crotch straps were not fastened to the shield.

When amended Standard No. 215 was being promulgated, the agency decided to include some procedure for testing those child restraints whose design could lead a parent to believe that a child was adequately protected when the restraint was, in fact, being misused. In the case of restraints with movable shields, the agency believed that some parents would conclude that a child was protected by the restraint simply by lowering the movable shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. Test configuration II in Standard No. 213 was intended to address this situation, by attempting to ensure that child restraint designs which would likely be misused would afford some minimal level of protection when they were misused. To achieve this end, test configuration II requires that child restraints with a movable shield in front of the child be tested in a 20 mile per hour crash with the shield in front of the test dummy, but without attaching any belts which are not an integral part of the shield.

Many previous interpretations of this standard explained that section S6.1.2.3.1(c) allows belts which are an integral part of the movable shield to be attached during configuration II testing because the agency believed that the need to buckle such belts would be more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. That is, a parent would be less likely to conclude that the child was adequately protected if the integral belt was not buckled.

During 1980, the manufacturers of the restraints with movable shields to which crotch straps were to be attached asked NHTSA if the crotch straps could be attached to the shield during configuration II testing if the movable shield were spring-loaded so that it would not stay in front of the child unless the crotch strap were attached. The agency concluded that the rationale for not allowing the nonintegral crotch strap to be fastened during configuration II testing would not apply if the crotch strap were to be fastened to spring-loaded movable shields. Unless these crotch straps were attached, there would be nothing in front of the child to restrain him or her in the event of a crash. Therefore, NHTSA decided it was unlikely that a parent would conclude that a child would be adequately protected without attaching these crotch straps, and permitted spring-loaded movable shields to attach nonintegral crotch straps during configuration II testing under Standard No. 213.

The shield on the Collier-Keyworth child restraint is not spring-loaded and thus would remain in front of an occupant regardless of whether the crotch strap is fastened. Our examination of the photographs and materials enclosed with your letter suggests that it is possible a parent might conclude that a child was adequately protected simply by lowering the shield in front of the child without buckling the crotch strap. For instance, Figure 5 of Exhibit B shows the shield lowered and staying in place without buckling the crotch strap. I am sure that Collier-Keyworth wants to minimize the chances of this sort of misuse occurring, and will want to incorporate some means of alerting parents each time they place a child in the restraint that the crotch strap must be buckled. Such a means could be spring-loading the movable shield, as would be required if the crotch strap were not an integral part of the shield, or could be a "warning" label on the front of the shield explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure Via Express Mail

April 12, 1985

Steve Kratzke, Esq. U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administation Nassif Building, Room 5219 400 7th Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Collier-Keyworth Safe & Sound II Car Seat

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

We represent Collier-Keyworth Company with regard to the above referenced product.

As per our previous telephone conversations, we are writing in order to obtain clarification from your office regarding the interpretation of Section S 6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213) and its applicability to the above referenced product.

49 CFR 571.213 S6.1.2.3.1(c) specifically provides in appropriate part as follows:

"For a child's restraint's system with fixed or movable surface described in S5.2.2 which is being tested under the conditions of test configuration II do not attach any of the child restraint belts unless there are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface." (Emphasis supplied).

We understand that standard 213 is intended to address, among other things, the problems and misuse of child restraints which primarily involves failure to attach buckles and latches, and that to insure that children placed in child restraints are afforded adequate protection, notwithstanding such use, the aforementioned sections of the standard provide that the belts are to be attached to restraining shield during testing only if they are "integral" parts of the shield.

The common English definition of "integral" is "formed as a unit with another part".

We believe that a belt which is attached and not easily removed from the shield is an integral part of the shield since the belt is intended to remain attached whether or not the restraint is in use and is not subject to the types of misuse which the standard intended to minimize.

Our client continually strives to design, manufacture and produce child restraint systems which provide the utmost protection for a child placed in them and eliminate foreseeable misuse of the product. To this end the Safe & Sound II has been developed. The Safe & Sound II consists of a tubular steel frame, a padded molded plastic shell, one piece molded plastic base capable of adjustment for reclined positioning and a harness/shield restraint. The character of the product can be seen from the enclosed instructions and photographs.

The product can be used as a rear facing system for infants and as an upright forward facing system for children 20-40 lbs. Thus, a single purchase enables a consumer to effectively provide protection for his child from birth through 40 lbs. in weight.

The Safe & Sound II Restraint System integrates the webbing of the upper torso restraint with the crotch strap and impact shield in a continuous connection. The strapping together with a molded plastic unit form a continuous loop when the crotch strap is buckled. This arrangement provides a variety of advantages as follows:

1. The system provides a secure 5 point harness system and guarantees that the occupant will be properly positioned within the system in the event of an accident.

2. A large padded surface on the impact shield located at the lower torso area provides for maximum distribution of impact forces over a large an area as possible. This shield is also designed to eliminate the need for separate lap belt assembly and avoid the roping, twisting and cutting into the pelvic areas associated with lap belts. Additionally the shields in connection with the straps form a continuous secure loop.

3. The belt of the upper torso restraint are routed from the back support surface of the system and through the impact shield so that at all points there is assurance that the belts will "lie flat".

4. This child restraint system minimizes the potential for misuse and provides for a simple one-step placement of the child into a secure restraint system. A user need only lift the shield, with its integrated straps, place in the child in the system close the shield and snap the safety buckle to the base of the shield.

For your better understanding and reference, I have enclosed a set of instructions for the Safe & Sound II (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Additionally, photographs labeled Figure 1 through 9 have been attached to this letter as Exhibit B. The instructions will provide you with a full understanding of the capability of the product and the photographs indicate that the straps, movable shield, and seat are fully integrated with one another.

The photographs indicate the following:

Figure 1 shows the restraint system from a forward view with a buckle attached.

Figure 2 shows the buckle unattached and the shield moved upwards as would be the case prior to the placement of a child within the system.

Figure 3 shows the manner in which the strap forms an unbroken loop around the buckle and the manner in which the buckle snaps to the recessed based clip.

Figure 4 indicates the manner in which the straps flow continuously through the rear seat support and the movable shield assuring that they "lie flat". Figure 5 shows the buckle portion of the strap as positioned when unattached.

Figure 6 provides a close-up view of the manner in which the buckle secures into the seat base. The belt buckles much like an ordinary seat belt.

Figure 7 indicates that the straps are securely attached to the movable shield. See also Figure 4.

Figure 8 shows a view of the bottom portion of the shield showing that even when the straps are pulled upward they are incapable of separating from the shield since a continuous loop and buckle prevent their detachment.

Figure 9 shows the rear view of the restraint system and indicates the manner in which the straps follow through the rear plastic molded back support and are secured around the tubular steel frame. You should note the very end of the strap has a metal clamped piece placed around it to inhibit removal of the strap through the buckle.

We believe that this product incorporates child restraint belts which are "an integral part" of the fixed seat and the movable shield portion of the unit.

Therefore, it is our opinion that the buckle should be attached under the conditions of test configuration II of the Standard.

We would appreciate your opinion regarding this product.

If you have any questions, or wish to discuss any item in greater detail, please do not hesitate to call. As previously discussed, I am prepared to visit you in Washington with a sample of the Safe & Sound II if you deem it necessary. We look forward to your prompt response.

Very truly yours, LOCKER GREENBERG & BRAININ, P.C. BY Frederick B. Locker FBL:dd cc: Mr. James R. Fuller

ID: nht76-5.44

DATE: 01/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: GENERAL Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 2, 1975, asking this agency's opinion as to whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle Identification Number, would preempt any differing State law or regulation specifying the content of a vehicle identification number. You asked the question in the context of a Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission action recommending such a regulation to the States.

Standard No. 115 requires a vehicle identification that is unique to a manufacturer during any ten-year period. It does not specify the length or the content of the number. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standard on vehicle identification numbers was intended generally to cover all aspects to those numbers, and preempt any differing State rules, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U. S. Supreme Court in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is "whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field." Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U. S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation."

The NHTSA has determined that the safety standard on vehicle identification numbers, No. 115, is intended to cover all aspects of vehicle identification numbering relative to the vehicles to which it applies, and that any aspects for which there are no specific requirements were intended by this agency to be left to the discretion of the manufacturers. State regulations differing from the Federal standard on this subject are found to "impair the federal superintendence of the field," within the meaning of the Florida Lime doctrine, and any such State regulation would be preempted under section 103(d), 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

November 14, 1975

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DEAR DR. GREGORY:

Re: Preemption and FMVSS 115

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) will hold a hearing on December 11, 1975 in Kissimmee, Florida preliminary to adoption of a regulation entitled "Minimum requirements for the design of a vehicle identification number system for passenger cars". The regulation, if adopted at the VESC meeting, would apply to passenger cars registered in States that in turn adopt the VESC regulation.

Due to the relationship between the VESC and its member States [discussed in detail below], the December 11 hearing raises the real concern that one or more States will adopt the proposed VESC regulation as a part of their vehicle code within a few months thereafter. Thus, the VESC regulation can be expected to very quickly become part of the vehicle law in several states.

The proposed VESC regulation is not identical to the performance requirements of FMVSS 115, "Vehicle Identification Number". The difference will be discussed in detail below.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 states in part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

General Motors is of the opinion that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) intended FMVSS 115, "Vehicle Identification Number", to be a comprehensive, uniform and exclusive safety standard applicable" to all aspects of vehicle identification numbering; that generally those State vehicle identification numbering requirements which apply to passenger cars and which are not identical to FMVSS 115 are preempted by FMVSS 115 under

authority of Section 103(d) as quoted above; and that specifically those provisions dealing with the content of the digits and letters used in the vehicle identification number are preempted by FMVSS 115 under authority of Section 103(d). GM anticipates that NHTSA holds the same opinion in the matter as GM does and requests that NHTSA express its opinion on this important subject in response to this letter and to the VESC prior to the December 11 meeting.

VESC AND ITS MEMBER STATES

The Beamer Resolution, Public Law 85-684, August 20, 1958, gave Congressional assent to agreements or compacts among States for "cooperative effort and mutual assistance in the establishment and carrying out of traffic safety programs, including but not limited to, the enactment of uniform traffic laws . . . and . . . for the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise, as they deem desirable for the establishment and carrying out of such traffic safety programs". Attached is a copy of the Beamer Resolution.

The Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact was subsequently developed as the mechanism by which States could compact with one another for the purposes stated in Public Law 85-684. Attached is a copy of the Compact.

Article III of the Compact creates the VESC as the agency of the member States.

As stated in Article I, subsection (b)(1), of the Compact, one purpose of the Compact is to "promote uniformity in regulation of and standards for equipment". Article V of the Compact authorizes the VESC after hearings to adopt "rules, regulations or codes embodying performance requirements or restrictions for any item or items of equipment covered in the report [indicating the need for regulation]". (This provision appears in the Compact notwithstanding the fact that the Beamer Resolution relegates compact activities in the field of "safe automobile . . . design" to research only.) Under Article V of the Compact, once a regulation has been adopted by the VESC, each party State must duly consider it for adoption.

Sections (e), (f), and (g) of Article V of the Compact provide that member States may adopt or reject VESC regulations by administrative or legislative action as appropriate under individual State constitutions and statutes.

Forty-two States and the District of Columbia are now members of the Vehicle Equipment Safety Compact. The eight states that are not members are Alabama, Alaska, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

In thirty of the member States, a VESC regulation becomes a mandatory State equipment requirement only after the individual State's Legislature enacts it into law.

A VESC regulation, however, can be adopted by administrative action alone in the following twelve States: Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Maryland (deemed approved in absence of legislative disapproval), New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Virginia.

Under the procedure followed by VESC, the December 11 hearing may be the final administrative step before adoption by VESC of this regulation. Indeed, the first line of the attached Notice of Public Hearing states that the hearing is preliminary "to final adoption" of the regulation. Following VESC adoption, as many as twelve States can adopt the VESC regulation administratively without legislative action, whereupon the regulation acquires the force of law immediately in those States. In those twelve States, six months is the maximum time within which to act but no minimum time is specified.

The twelve States not only may adopt the VESC regulation but are required by statute to do so unless "the public safety" requires otherwise. Article V, section (g) of the Compact, which has been incorporated in the statutes of the member States, so provides. If only "public safety" is relevant in the State hearing prior to adoption of the regulation by an individual State, an objection that the regulation is preempted by FMVSS 115 under authority of Section 103(d) might not be heeded.

Since its establishment, the VESC had adopted a number of regulations. Among them are Regulation V-1, New Tires; Regulation (Illegible Word) Minimum Requirements For Motor Vehicle Connecting Devices and Towing Methods; Regulation VESC-6, Minimum Requirements For School Bus Construction and Equipment; and VESC-9, Safe Operating Condition of Truck and Bus Type Tires.

VESC can adopt the regulation soon after the December 11 hearing and thereby trigger simultaneous action in forty-two States and the District of Columbia to adopt the regulation as law. If the NHTSA does not express its opinion on preemption at the VESC hearing or prior to adoption by VESC of the regulation, it will be necessary for each of the forty-three member jurisidictions to consider the merits of the preemption argument individually with possibly differing results.

Thus, urgent need exists for the NHTSA to express its position on preemption at or soon after the December 11 VESC hearing.

DIFFERENCES IN CONTENT BETWEEN PROPOSED VESC REGULATION AND FMVSS 115

FMVSS 115 and the proposed VESC regulation apply to the same class of vehicles, namely, passenger cars. See paragraph 2, Scope, of proposed VESC regulation.

The attached yellow pages from the VESC proposal deal with the passenger car regulations. The pink pages deal with a proposal for non-motive power recreational vehicles which is included for information only.

Paragraph 6 of the proposed VESC regulation sets forth the basic requirements. These require the VIN to contain in sequence exactly two digits called the Make Code Field, five or fewer digits called the Identifier Field, and exactly eight digits called the Indicator Section.

FMVSS 115 does not expressly address the make-up of the vehicle identification number. However, it is GM's understanding that FMVSS 115 is intended by the NHTSA to be a comprehensive, uniform, and exclusive standard covering all aspects of vehicle identification numbering. As such, the absence of an express requirement concerning the make-up of the vehicle identification number does not permit a State to impose such a requirement. This understanding is supported by your letter of November 8, 1973 to Mr. W. Pudinski of the Department of California Highway Patrol concerning FMVSS 108. See Attachment. In that letter you stated:

The implication of the California opinion is that any mode of design or performance that is not expressly dealt with in the Federal standard is open to regulation by

the States. Such a position is impractical, where the agency's intent is to have a comprehensive, uniform regulation in a given area . . . Congress clearly intended the NHTSA to establish a single set of uniform standards to which manufacturers must comply, and that intent would tend to be defeated by the position taken in the California opinion. Federal regulation has a negative as well as a positive aspect: in determining that there should be certain requirements in an area, we also are deciding against imposing others. The only way to effectuate such a decision is to declare, as we have done here, that our regulation is intended to be exclusive, and to describe as necessary its outer limits. [Emphasis added]

POTENTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH FUTURE NHTSA PLANS

If it is assumed for sake of argument only that preemption is not present, adoption of the VESC regulation in any of the VESC member jurisdictions could result in serious practical complications of future NHTSA plans.

In September 1975, the International Standards Organization (ISO) adopted two vehicle identification number standards: Vehicle Identification Numbering System 3779

and World Manufacturer Identifier Coding System 3780, which apply to all "road vehicles" including passenger cars. The text of the officially adopted standards will issue in January 1976. The European Economic Community (EEC) or Common Market Council, at its November 7, 1975 meeting, began considering these ISO standards for incorporation in the proposed EEC Council directive for statutory places and inscriptions for motor vehicles and trailers. Once the Common Market Council has incorporated the ISO standard, all Common Market countries must within 18 months "accept" the standard, i.e., recognize the standard as the exclusive or an alternative method of compliance with vehicle identification numbering requirements.

The ISO standard sets a maximum of 17 digits in the VIN. Although the standard can be met by fewer than 17 digits, one or more of the Common Market countries may adopt the standard in a way that requires no more and no less than 17 digits. Regardless of whether this happens, there is a direct conflict between the ISO standard which sets a maximum of 17 digits and the proposed VESC regulation which sets a maximum of 15 digits.

The ISO standard includes a World Manufacturer Identifier in the vehicle identification number which makes it possible to identify the country of origin as well as the manufacturer. This feature of the standard presumably will facilitate efforts to curtail international taffic in stolen cars. For that reason, it may be favored by the Interagency (DOT-Justice) Committee on Auto Theft Prevention. If curtailing international traffic in stolen cars prevents some car thefts from occurring in the United States, it may be that the NHTSA would also favor incorporating the ISO standard in FMVSS 115. If so, there will be a

head-on conflict with any VESC member jurisdiction that has adopted the VESC regulation because the VESC regulation requires two and only two digits in the Make Code Field, whereas the ISO standard requires three.

In the absence of Federal preemption in this matter, if any of the Common Market countries adopt the ISO standard in such a way that the 17 digits permitted by that standard are mandatory, adoption of the VESC standard in any of the VESC member-state jurisdications would require domestic manufacturers to have two separate VIN systems, one for vehicles sold in the United States and another for vehicles sold for export. This would be a confusing, wasteful and untenable situation.

GM respectfully requests NHTSA's opinion regarding FMVSS 115 in relation to the VESC regulation and the adoption thereof by any State or the District of Columbia. Your opinion should also be conveyed directly to the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission either at the December 11 meeting or at the VESC headquarters in Washington.

Frank W. Allen -- Assistant General Counsel, GENERAL MOTORS

ENCS.

ID: nht81-1.34

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1980, to the Office of Chief Counsel presenting a problem that has occurred recently with the importation of retreadable casings.

You noted that for the last 12 years this agency has allowed the importation of 150,000 to 200,000 truck casings annually but, "suddenly and without notice" in September 1980, prohibited importation of casings not labelled with the letter DOT and the manufacturer's identification symbol which are required by Standard No. 119. You also pointed out that there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering retreading of truck tires but that after retreading "they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49." Finally, you have indicated that there is a demand for the casings "by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators."

As I am sure you realize, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation of motor vehicles and equipment that were not manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether those vehicles or equipment are new or used. We have no knowledge of the importation of noncomplying used truck tires without bond. We can only act on those importations reported by the Customs Service.

Standard No. 119 is the applicable standard covering truck tires, and one of its requirements is that truck tires bear the label DOT. The standard, however, has only been in effect since March 1, 1975 (the last 6 years). The prohibition on the importation of nonconforming tires manufactured after the effective date of Standard No. 119 may well not have been much of an issue until recently because sufficient numbers of used tires manufactured before the effective date were available for importation. Now that pre-March 1, 1975 tires are becoming progressively scarcer, importers are presumably turning increasingly to post-March 1975 tires.

Your comment that after retreading the tires comply with Part 574 is of interest. Under S574.5, "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable . . ." We have advised that the DOT symbol be buffed off truck tire casings before retreading to avoid confusion on the part of interested parties that the tire might meet some nonexistent safety standard.

Importers of truck tire casings that do not bear the symbol "DOT" have two options for release of conformity bond. They may provide a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the applicable standard. Alternatively, they may provide a verifiable serial numbering system from the original manufacturer to demonstrate that the tires were manufactured prior to the applicable standard.

In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this office on January 12, 1981, you asked whether importers could test the casings after entry to verify conformance as a means of satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 1280(b)(1)(iii). The answer is a qualified yes. Certainly NHTSA would accept meaningful test data with respect to the tire tested. The problem lies in extrapolating these data to other tires of the same manufacturer. As you know, most tire manufacturers as part of their quality control program test tires at random to ensure continuing compliance with Standard Nos. 109 and 119. Thus, an importer's test data might be acceptable to NHTSA with respect to similar tires produced nearly contemporaneously with those tested, but not acceptable with respect to tires produced farther away in time. If your members chose to pursue this method of demonstrating conformance, each case would be treated on an ad hoc basis.

One further possibility is suggested by your letter if the tires do not comply with Standard No. 119. There is an implication that the primary use of these tires is in off-road applications, "gravel, coal, and mining truck operations." If the importers would be willing to submit an affidavit that the tires, after retreading, will be sold to those purchasers that will use them on private property and not the public roads, then we would consider admission on such basis. Where similar affidavits have been previously submitted, we might seek information from the affiant regarding the actual use of the tires covered by those prior affidavits.

If further questions are raised, I would be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

November 17, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219

Gentlemen:

Subject: Imported Retreadable Casings

Re: Title 19 Customs Duties, Chapter 1, U. S. Customs Service, 12.80

Worn casings suitable only for retreading and use on vehicles other than passenger cars have been imported by retreaders and importers who resell them for approximately fifteen years.

These casings have been cleared by customs during this period of time without question or delay. The casings are predominantly of Japanese manufacture and are eminently suitable for retreading. The casings are 10.00-20 bias and radial ply. All are extra ply. The bias ply are load range G (14 ply rating) and the radial ply are load range H (16 ply rating) manufactured for use, when new, on Japanese busses. The bus companies remove the worn tires and re-sell them. The tires are manufactured by companies such as Bridgestone, Yokohama, Sumitomo, Toyo and Ohtsu.

Worn casings, because they are load range G and H, are not available in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet the demand by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators, that operate under severe conditions.

The predominant types of worn tires of U.S. manufacture available to such operators are load range F (12 ply rating) for bias ply and load range G (14 ply rating) for radial ply.

Imported worn casings have been retreaded for the past fifteen years and have performed to the satisfaction of the user. Had they not done so, they would no longer have been accepted. The relationship between retreader and customer is such that the retreader must give a verbal or written warranty that his product, the retreaded casing, will give satisfactory service and be free from defects in workmanship and material for the life of the retreaded casing, which is a guarantee equal to or better than that offered by new tire manufacturers in the United States.

The imported casings do not, in general, indicate compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 by the letters DOT and manufacturer's mark. There is not a standard governing the retreading of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. FMVSS 117 applies only to retreaded pneumatic tires for passenger cars. Standard 119 regulates only new tires. Therefore, the 13,800,000 truck retreads produced each year might or might not be manufactured on a casing that meets the standard 119, even though these retreads can and do meet the test requirements of MVSS 119. Additional proof is in their performance on the highway. Further, tests conducted under the auspices of the American Retreaders Association by Dr. S. K. Clark of the University of Michigan proved that the strength of a worn truck tire is the same as a comparable new tire.

As of September 1980, the DOT, NHTSA suddenly and without notice initiated activity under title 19, Customs Duties, Chapter 1, United States Customs Office, Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1980, Par. 12.80 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This activity was specifically directed against imported truck casings, even though the customs service had been permitting entry without restrictions since the promulgation of this standard, January 1, 1968. The logical question would be why wait over twelve years to direct its application to imported worn casings?

During this period of time, a sorely needed source of retreadable truck casings has been developed. The economics are there. A truck operator can purchase a retreaded casing for one-third to one-half the price of a new tire and will use retreads whenever possible. The economics justify it. The imported casings, although they are motor vehicle equipment, are not suitable for application to motor vehicles until they are re-manufactured through retreading, at which time they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49. The manufacturers mark appears on the retreaded casing.

We respectfully request that you rescind this sudden requirement, continuing to allow importation of worn truck casings in the same manner as you have in the past twelve years. In lieu of this, you should allow at least 180 days for the importers to make whatever arrangements will be necessary to bring imported casings into compliance.

At this point in time, we estimate there are approximately 150,000 to 200,000 worn truck casings imported annually. Compare this to the 13,800,000 total and imports are a small percentage. To the small businessman who is a retreader who buys 200-300 of these casings, it is an important item for him and his customers.

We look forward to your approval of our request.

Arden H. Faris Assistant Director

ID: aiam4352

Dear Dr Ernst: This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Va Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.; The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe i consist of two additional parts: 'the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two-component adhesive', and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier....' In your words, 'The two parts are held together by three screws', and you believe that 'the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded'.; Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a 'replaceable bulb headlamp in pertinent part as 'a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly....' In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a 'replaceable bulb headlamp' that is permissible for use on motor vehicle sold and used in the United States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical amiability is that the beam and aiming pad are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3985

Dear Mr. Pesce: Thank you for your May 18, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence o any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of colored windshield wiper blades.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agenc has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing System*, applicable to new motor vehicles. While this standard does not regulate wiper color, it does among other things, require that a wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield; In addition, Standard No 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, also applies t new motor vehicles. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood the unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle.; If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standar No. 104 or Standard No. 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.; As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) o the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and vehicle repair businesses form knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the driver's field of view, as required by Standard No. 107.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3986

Dear Mr. Pesce: Thank you for your May 18, 1985 letter inquiring about the existence o any Federal safety requirements applicable to your projected sale of colored windshield wiper blades.; Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, this agenc has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, *Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems*, applicable to new motor vehicles. While this standard does not regulate wiper color, it does, among other things, require that a wiping system clear a minimum percentage of a vehicle's windshield.; In addition, Standard No. 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, also applies t new motor vehicles. This standard specifies reflecting surface requirements for certain components, including windshield wiper blades, in the driver's field of view. Its purpose is to reduce the likelihood that unacceptable glare from reflecting surfaces will hinder safe and normal operation of the vehicle.; If a new vehicle equipped with your blade did not comply with Standar No. 104 or Standard No 107 due to some aspect of that blade, the sale of that car to the public would be a violation of the prohibition in section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act against the sale of noncomplying vehicles.; As to used vehicles, you should be aware that section 108()(2)(A) o the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle under Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Care should be taken that the installation of your product would not have that effect. A rendering inoperative might occur if, for example, your blade were not large enough to enable the wiping system to clear a sufficient area of the windshield. We urge you therefore to ensure that the substitution of your blade for an original equipment blade provided by a vehicle manufacturer would enable the wiping system to continue to perform as required by Standard No. 104, and would not produce unacceptable glare in the drivers field of view, as required by Standard No. 107.; I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3800

Dear Mr. Barbie: This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, t the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.; The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards i determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An 'incomplete vehicle' is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, *Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages*, as:; >>>an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassi structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.<<<; The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3835

Dear Mr. Genthe: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1984, with respect t the inclusion of other lighting functions in a replaceable bulb headlamp compartment. These functions could include parking lamps, turn signal lamps, or side marker lamps. The bulb used would meet Standard No. 108/SAE specifications for the function chosen and they would be incorporated into the compartment by a 'sealed attachment.' You represent that there will be no impairment of any function, and that the overall assembly will meet all photometric and environmental specifications. You have asked whether such a combination assembly is permissible under Standard No. 108.; The agency interprets Standard No. 108's specifications for replaceabl bulb headlamps as allowing only one bulb in a lamp assembly to be used for headlighting purposes. It is silent as to whether additional bulbs may be used to provide other lighting functions. This means that such a bulb is permitted.; Obviously the inclusion of a second bulb can affect the characteristic of the assembly, whether through heat build up, the introduction of contaminants through the junction of the bulb and assembly, etc. These problems would appear to be minimized under the assumptions set forth in your letter. We believe therefore that, under these conditions, an auxiliary bulb could be included in the headlighting compartment, provided that the assembly meets all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108 for each function. Problems that may develop in service would be subject to the safety related defects authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; If Hella proceeds with a multi-bulb design, we would like to reques that it share with us the types of tests it will be developing which it deems necessary to insure adequate safety performance, so that our knowledge of the art lamp technology may be broadened.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5271

"Dear Mr. McIntyre: This responds to your letter in which you withdre your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead. You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair. Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, 'except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . .' That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards. I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";