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: 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: 6921

Dr. Larry J. French
President and CEO
Magnascreen
265 Kappa Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238

Dear Dr. French:

This responds to your letter inquiring about a recent amendment to Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. (49 CFR 571.111) You explained that your company is developing electronically controlled dimmable (day/night) rearview mirrors for motor vehicles and requested that the agency assess your reading of section S11 of the standard. We are pleased to have this opportunity to interpret our standard for you.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following letter represents our opinion based on the facts presented in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for the performance and location of rearview mirrors. Section S11, which was recently amended to better address new mirror designs, specifies requirements for mirror construction. (See 56 FR 58513, November 20, 1991.) The section states in relevant part that:

All single reflectance mirrors shall have an average reflectance of at least 35 percent. If a mirror is capable of multiple reflectance levels, the minimum reflectance level in the day mode shall be at least 35 percent and the minimum reflectance level in the night mode shall be at least 4 percent. A multiple reflectance mirror shall either be equipped with a means for the driver to adjust the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure, or achieve such reflectance level automatically in the event of electrical failure.

You asked whether an alternate power source can be used to achieve the specified fail-safe operation (i.e., adjusting the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent in the event of electrical failure). While your letter did not specify what you meant by "alternate power source," we assume that it means an electrical power source other than the one intended to normally operate the mirror. Examples of an alternate electrical power source include solar energy or a self-contained battery system.

We interpret the term "electrical failure," as used in section S11 of Standard No. 111, to include any type of electrical failure. This would include electrical failure related to an alternate power source as well as electrical failure related to the primary power source. Therefore, unless adjustment of the mirror to a reflectance level of at least 35 percent occurred even in situations where there was electrical failure related to the alternate power source, the alternate electrical source could not be used to provide the fail-safe operation required by section S11.

The preamble to the final rule amending Standard No. 111 explained that the agency wanted to assure that multiple reflectance mirrors are capable of providing adequate images at all times during the vehicle's operation, including electrical failure situations where the mirror is unpowered. The agency noted that situations can occur where the mirror would be unpowered even though the vehicle could be operational, citing connector faults and circuit board faults. See 56 FR 58515.

To comply with section S11 in situations where a mirror is unpowered as a result of electrical failure, a mirror would either have to default automatically to the high reflectance mode (as in the case of an opposite polarity fail-safe liquid crystal mirror described in the preamble) or be capable of being manually adjusted to the high reflectance mode. We do not have enough information about your proposed mirror to determine whether it would comply with the amendments in the case of electrical failure related to the alternate power source.

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 Enclosure Ref: 111 d:3/26/92

ID: 15100.ztv

Mr. Lawrence Rucker
3924 O'Bannon Drive, Apt. A
Jackson, Mississippi 39213

Dear Mr. Rucker:

This is in reply to your recent undated letter that arrived in this office on May 5. You write requesting a manufacturer identification number for your "new style of high-mounted brake lights." You have been told "that everything seems to be within the federal code of 108."

This refers to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment.

My letter is based on the assumption that you intend these lamps to replace the center high-mounted stop lamp rather than to be mounted as pairs to supplement a vehicle's two lower-mounted stop lamps. As you say, your stop lamps are unique because of their design and shape, to judge by the dollar sign and cocktail glass drawings that you enclosed. As replacement equipment, your lamps would have to meet the appropriate requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 and be certified as meeting them.

Standard No. 108 does not specify permissible shapes for the center stop lamp but it does require the lamp to comply with minimum and maximum photometric (light output) values measured at certain identified test points, as set out in Table 10 of the standard. The test points are, in essence, a grid and control to some extent the design of the lamp. For example, it appears to us unlikely that stylized lamps such as yours can meet the requirements of Table 10, or the requirement that the effective projected luminous area not be less than 4 square inches. If you intend the lamp to be located on the parcel shelf, it will have to conform when photometered through the rear glass and at the orientation in which it is installed, and minimize reflections from the light on the rear window that might be visible in the rear view mirror to the driver.

You may obtain a copy of Standard No. 108 and the agency's other regulations by placing an order with the U.S. Government Printing Office, whose telephone number is (202) 512-0133. The volume is "Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 400-999." You will find Standard No. 108 at Section 571.108. The portions that apply to center high-mounted stop lamps are paragraphs S3, S5.1.1.27, S5.3.1.8, and S5.4, Tables III and IV, and Figure 10 (photometrics).

If any lamp design does not conform, it cannot be manufactured and sold as replacement equipment without violating Title 49, United States Code, Section 30112(a). A civil penalty of up to $1,100 may be imposed for each lamp sold, up to a maximum of $880,000.

However, Standard No. 108 does not apply to center stop lamps sold for use on vehicles that were never required by Standard No. 108 to have them in the first place. The center lamp has been required on passenger cars manufactured beginning September 1, 1985, and on light trucks and vans manufactured beginning September 1, 1993. Thus you would not be in violation of Federal law by selling your lamps as presently designed, for use on vehicles produced before these dates. However, they might not be allowed under the laws of Mississippi or other states where you may want to sell them. We aren't conversant with local laws and suggest you ask the Department of Motor Vehicles in your state for advice.

We have no "manufacturer identification number" for producers of lighting equipment, but we do require manufacturers of replacement lighting equipment to file a simple identification statement with us not later than 30 days after beginning manufacture of their products. This regulation is known as 49 CFR Part 566, and can be found in the same volume as Standard No. 108, reference above..

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d:6/11/97

ID: 13392.ztv

Mr. Miguel Padres
441 N. Grand Avenue, Suite 350
Nogales, AZ 85621

Dear Mr. Padres:

This is in reply to your e-mail of December 30, 1996, asking for an interpretation of the regulations of this agency as they may affect a business plan you wish to implement. We regret the delay in responding to you but your letter presents novel and complex questions.

You would like to take a 1969 VW Beetle to Mexico and "restore or replace all the parts permitted by the laws, that would continue to make it a 1969 VW Beetle." You refer to 49 CFR 571.7(e) and interpret it as saying that "placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axle (as a minimum) are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. You intend to " place a new body on the old chassis" which, to you, would mean that it "would still be a 1969 vehicle." As part of your modifications you would either retain or replace with DOT certified items the original brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, rims, glazing and seat belt assemblies. You would then bring the vehicle back to the United States.

First of all, Sec. 571.7(e) does not apply to passenger cars such as VW Beetles; it applies to trucks. However, according to long-standing agency interpretations, the addition of a new body to the chassis of a passenger car previously in use does not result in the creation of a new motor vehicle that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. On the basis of the limited information you have provided us, we do not believe that the parts you have listed that you may replace, together with the body, would exceed this threshold. The vehicle would remain a 1969 model under our interpretations.

Further, our importation regulations do not require that a vehicle comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards if it is 25 years old or older (49 CFR 591.5(i)(1)). This means that the modified 1969 Beetle, when imported into the United States after the modifications are made in Mexico, need not comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, if the refurbishing involves sufficient manufacturing operations, the vehicle would be considered a newly manufactured one. This means that it would be required to meet all applicable safety standards in effect at the time of refurbishing (manufacture), and to be certified as conforming to those standards. Because of the variety of fact situations involved, the agency has found it difficult to establish a general requirement, and it provides opinions on a case by case basis.

We are unsure of your connection with Beetlemex, Inc., which shares your street and suite address in Nogales. Beetlemex is advertising on the internet that it is "bringing brand new Beetles into the U.S.", each of which is "officially a restored vehicle, but is actually a brand new Beetle." Beetlemex instals "brand new parts taken off from a brand new sedan" and "at the end, we have a Beetle that has most of the parts from a brand new Beetle." Statements such as these raise the possibility that the threshold has been exceeded. The ad also states that Beetlemex registers and titles the vehicles as well. In our interpretations, we consider it important that a vehicle equipped with a new body on an old chassis would continue to carry its original model year designation for state registration purposes, in this instance, 1969. If the vehicles refurbished by Beetlemex have been registered and titled as 1996 or 1997 models, that is prima facie evidence to us that the modifications have gone beyond what is permissible for the original vehicle to retain its characterization as one manufactured in 1969.

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

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:591
d.7/28/97

ID: 22137(2)

Bob Snyder, Vice President
Longacre and Associates, Inc.
424 Fourth Street
Suite C
Annapolis, MD 21403


Dear Mr. Snyder:



This responds to your August 24, 2000, letter asking whether vehicles are allowed to have any size side windows in the front seat occupant compartment. Specifically, you ask about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205) and FMVSS No. 214, Side door strength (49 CFR 571.214), as applied to a flatbed-type truck with a gross vehicle weight rating of 18,000 pounds. Our answer is that our standards do not directly limit the size of vehicle side windows.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards. For that reason, NHTSA neither tests, approves, disapproves, nor endorses products prior to their introduction into the retail market. Rather, we enforce compliance with the standards by purchasing new vehicles and equipment and testing them. We also investigate safety-related defects.

Our FMVSSs set forth requirements for safety performance, in terms that minimize design restrictions. Ejection of occupants through glazing (through windshields or the side windows) is a safety concern addressed by several standards, including FMVSS No. 205. FMVSS No. 205 sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new motor vehicles and glazing materials sold as items of replacement equipment. FMVSS No. 212, Windshield mounting (49 CFR 571.212), establishes windshield retention requirements to reduce the likelihood of ejection of occupants in a crash. FMVSS No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release (49 CFR 571.217), establishes requirements for the retention of windows in buses, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the bus.

You also inquire about the requirements of FMVSS No. 214. FMVSS No. 214 specifies vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified strength requirements for side doors. FMVSS No. 214 does not apply to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 18,000 pounds.

At this time, the above-discussed standards do not directly restrict the size of side windows. NHTSA, however, in response to the NHTSA Authorization Act of 1991 and ongoing research into rollover and ejection mitigation, is currently evaluating the potential of advanced glazing systems to reduce occupant ejection. The agency has recently published a report entitled "Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing: Status Report II" which evaluates the progress of that advanced glazing research. This report is available online at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/include/nrd10/nrd11/glazing.html or may be ordered through NHTSA's Technical Information Services at 1-800-445-0197.

I note that the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. FMCSA was established on January 1, 2000, and was formerly a part of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You may wish to contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4012 for information concerning the issues discussed in your correspondence.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:205
d.1/3/01

ID: 1982-3.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wonder Enterprise

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 22, 1982, asking whether Federal regulations would prohibit use of your patented device, the "Illuminated Wonder Panel." This device would be used in the space provided for the front license plate and consists of a panel on which numbers or letters would be illuminated from behind, if an owner wished to "personalize" his vehicle. You have indicated that the candela for each character averages .0365, and that with a seven character maximum, a total output of less than .25 candela would result You submitted photographs showing this device in operation from a distance of 50 feet on a vehicle using parking lamps only, and using parking lamps/low beam headlamps.

Your device is not directly regulated by the Federal motor vehicle safety standard on vehicle lighting, Standard No. 108 As an item of original equipment, your device is permissible unless it impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard, such as parking lamps and headlamps. Judging by the photographs you submitted, it does not appear that your device would impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment. As an aftermarket item, your device is subject to regulation by any State in which the vehicle bearing it is registered. You will have to consult these States for further advice.

We hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

November 22, 1982

Robert Munoz Wonder Enterprise

Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Burndt:

I am a distributor that is interested in marketing a special type of lighting device for use on motor vehicles. This device is basically an illuminated personalized auto tag that is affixed to the front bumper of a car (for those states with single license plates). The tag, 6" x 12", will have personalized names or numbers on it, and only these letters or numbers will be illuminated; the rest of the tag will not emit light. This tag, registered in the U.S. Patent Office as the "Illuminated Wonder Panel", is no different than the current personalized automobile tags used in those states with single license plates, except that on this tag the personalized characters are illuminated.

The tag consists of a channel light housing that produces the incandescent light, an amber colored acylic panel thru which the light is emitted, and a clear cover plate. A prototype panel with the name "WONDER" in standard 2 inch letters, was submitted to a testing laboratory to measure the intensity of light produced (attached is the laboratory worksheet). The results showed an average of .0365 candela per letter or less than .25 candela total. With a maximum of seven characters on a tag, the intensity would never exceed .50 candela. Even though this is relatively minimal candlepower, I have enclosed two photographs taken of a vehicle at approximately 50 feet at night with the "WONDER" panel on the bumper, to illustrate the relative light intensities. Since the tag is designed to operate in conjunction with the lights, one picture is taken with the low beam headlights on, the other is taken with only the parking lights on.

The "Illuminated Wonder Panel" as described here, would be available as an automobile accessory; it is a form of ornamental lighting that to my knowledge is not defined by any SAE lighting standards or tests and may therefore not be regulated federally.

I believe this tag can be of value to the user and that the minimal light produced from the tag will not interfere with the intended operation of the existing vehicle's lights, or degrade the level of traffic safety while in its use. After speaking with Mr. Taylor Vinson and upon his suggestion, I am presenting this information to your Administration so that you may review it and advise me by providing a statement or opinion, in regards to its use prior to its production and distribution. Please let me know whether or not this would be in conflict with any safety standards and what subsequent procedures if any, need to be followed on a State level.

Thank you. I look forward to your response.

Robert Munoz President

ENVIRONMENTAL LAB WORK REQUEST OMITTED.

ID: maxzonenew

Mr. Galen Chen
Marketing Department
Maxzone Vehicle Lighting Corp.
5100 Walnut Grove Avenue
San Gabriel, CA 91776

Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your email (copy enclosed) concerning replacement lighting equipment. We apologize for the delay in our response.

You reported that your company is developing "a new headlamp" for 1998-2001 model Honda Accord passenger cars (we shall refer to this as the "Maxzone headlamp"). You informed us that the original equipment (OE) headlamp for these vehicles consists of "High Beam (9005 bulb), Low Beam (9006 bulb), Park Signal and reflector. No fog lamp function." (We would also note that the OE headlamp on this model Honda Accord appears to incorporate the required front turn signal and side marker lamp as well.) The Maxzone headlamp consists of "High Beam (H1 bulb), Low Beam (H3 bulb), Park Signal and weve added Fog Lamp (H3 bulb) to this headlamp assembly. It also comes with reflector." You informed us "the numbers of different functions after tests all pass SAE/DOT requirements." You asked whether the Maxzone headlamp could be certified and sold as legal replacements for the 1998-2001 Honda Accord models. As discussed below, the answer to this question is no.

Under S5.8, Replacement equipment, of Standard No. 108, "Each lamp . . . manufactured to replace any lamp . . . on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform to this standard." (S5.8.1)

S7.1 of Standard No. 108 requires a motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle, to "be equipped with a headlighting system designed to conform to the requirements of S7.3, S7.4, S7.5, or S7.6." Maxzone stated that the OE headlighting system on the 1998-2001

Honda Accord consists of headlamps with HB3 (9005) and HB4 (9006) replaceable light sources. Thus, a replacement headlamp for this vehicle must be evaluated according to the requirements of S7.5, Replaceable bulb headlamp systems.

S7.5(b) requires that each headlamp in the system be designed to conform to the photometrics as specified in S7.5(c) through (e) using any light source of the type intended for use in such system.Considering that this particular vehicle incorporates HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources in its OE headlighting system, we view S5.8.1 and S7.5(b) as requiring each replacement headlamp for this vehicle to be designed to conform to the specified photometry when using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources. Because replaceable light sources are, by regulation, designed to be non-interchangeable, it would not be possible for the Maxzone replacement headlamp to comply with the applicable photometry using HB3 and HB4 replaceable light sources when the Maxzone headlamp is designed to use replaceable light sources other than HB3 and HB4. Therefore, the Maxzone headlamp could not be certified and sold as a replacement for a 1998-2001 Honda Accord headlamp. This also means that a headlamp dealer or motor vehicle repair business could not remove the original headlamp and install the Maxzone headlamp as a replacement without violating 49 U.S.C. 30122. This section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from making inoperative equipment installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

You also informed us that the Maxzone headlamp "comes with reflector." We are unsure of your meaning. We interpret S5.8.1 as requiring replacement lighting equipment designed for specific motor vehicles to incorporate, at a minimum, the same required functionality as included on the original equipment lamp it is intended to replace. If the original Accord headlamp incorporated an amber side reflex reflector in compliance with Standard No. 108, each replacement headlamp for that Accord must also incorporate an amber side reflex reflector if we are to regard it being "designed to conform to this standard" within the meaning of S5.8.1.

I hope that this information is useful to you. If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.3/13/03

ID: 86-6.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Wallace

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Wallace Assistant Manager Chemical Commodities New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207

Dear Mr. Wallace:

Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1986, concerning how our regulations would affect the use of certain glazing materials in buses. You explained that the Transit Authority has recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As a part of that pork, the aide glazing of the buses was replaced with glazing that contained the following markings,"Lexan, MR 5000 sheet, ANSI % 26-1, Camplas, NY."

Subsequent to receipt of your letter, we received additional Information from General Electric, the manufacturer of Lexan, concerning the glazing material used in the side windows of your buses. According to General Electric, the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for "AS-5" glazing materials. The glazing material apparently was not marked as "AS-5" material. As discussed below, if the only markings on the glazing are the markings you described in your letter, the glazing apparently does not comply pith the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as "items" in the standard.) Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, It can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, and the rearmost windows, if used for driving Visibility.

In addition to setting performance requirements for different items of glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of 56 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that "item" of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information you provided about the markings on the glazing installed in your buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.

Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, we have been in contact with General Electric to obtain further information about this possible noncompliance.

Our regulations do not preclude the Transit Authority from operating a vehicle with noncomplying glazing materials: however, you should check with State authorities to determine the effect of New York law on operating these buses.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the agency: If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 19, 1986

Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

The New York City Transit Authority recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As part of this process, the side glazing on these buses was replaced with glazing marked as follows:

LEXAN MR 5000 SHEET ANSI Z 26-1 CAMPLAS, NY

The Authority has questioned the legality of operating buses with this material and would appreciate any comments your office may have to offer regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

William Wallace Assistant Manager, Chemical Commodities

ID: 9211

Mr. Randolph Schwarz
141 North Madison Drive
South Plainfield, NJ 07080

Dear Mr. Schwarz:

This responds to your letter to Mr. John Messera of NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116; Motor vehicle brake fluids. Your letter has been referred to my office for a response. As a consumer retrofitting your vehicle with DOT 5 brake fluid, you had several questions concerning the possible effects that an ingredient in the brake fluid might have on elastomers used in brake systems. Your questions are answered below.

You mentioned "seal swelling additives" added to DOT 5 brake fluid, that contact various elastomers in the brake system. Your first question was, when brake fluid manufacturers combine additives with brake fluid, should consumers be concerned with the combined fluids' compatibility with various elastomers used in braking systems?

Standard No. 116 defines, at S4. Definitions, brake fluid as a liquid designed for use in a motor vehicle hydraulic brake system where it will contact elastomeric components made of: styrene and butadiene rubber (SBR); ethylene and propylene rubber (EPR); polychlorophene (CR) brake hose inner tube stock; or natural rubber (NR). In order to minimize failures in hydraulic braking systems, Standard No. 116 specifies minimum performance standards for brake fluids. These performance standards include tests for styrene and butadiene rubber cups, the most common type of elastomer in a hydraulic brake system. The brake fluid manufacturer must certify that the brake fluid complies with Standard No. 116. (See S5.2.2(d).) While DOT 5 brake fluid must meet Standard No. 116, the specific ingredients in the fluid are not regulated by the standard.

The brake fluid manufacturer is expected to be aware that in addition to SBR, its brake fluid may contact EPR, CR, and NR elastomers in the brake system. Thus, the brake fluid manufacturers must ensure that contact between the fluid and the above stated elastomers would not result in a safety- related defect under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the brake fluid manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the brake fluid contains a safety related defect, the brake fluid manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective brake fluid and remedying the problem free of charge.

Your second question was whether DOT 5 brake fluid's compliance with Standard No. 116 ensures compatibility with elastomers. The answer is yes, for SBR elastomers. Further, besides Standard No. 116, the brake fluid manufacturer is subject to sections 151-159 of the Safety Act, that were previously discussed. At this time, NHTSA is not aware of safety related defects resulting from other ingredients used with brake fluid.

Your third question was whether Standard No. 116 only addresses SBR compatibility with brake fluid. Standard No. 116, at S4, addresses brake fluid that contacts four elastomer types. However, the tests specified in the standard are only of the most commonly used SBR cups.

Your fourth question was, if Standard No. 116 only mentions SBR elastomer, would it be advisable to add other elastomers to the specification, or to discuss elastomer compatibility on the brake fluid container?

Information discussing the elastomer compatibility of the brake fluid, or other ingredients, may be voluntarily placed on brake fluid containers. Standard No. 116 specifies information that brake fluid containers must carry. However, Standard No. 116 does not prohibit manufacturers from noting on brake fluid containers, compatibility of the silicone brake fluid, or other ingredients, with various elastomers.

Finally, you asked what Standard No. 116 specifies as the maximum viscosity for DOT 5 brake fluid, at -40 degrees Fahrenheit. Standard No. 116 specifies, at S5.1.3(c), that the maximum viscosity is 900 centistokes (cSt).

I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:116 d:5/5/94