ID: 1984-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John H. Schmidt -- Certification Supervisor, Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/30/76 letter from J. Womack to Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.

TEXT:

John H. Schmidt, P.E. Certification Supervisor Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. 3700 W. Juneau Avenue P.O. Box 653 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

Dear Mr. Schmidt:

This responds to your February 6, 1984 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, in which you asked whether your company may include on vehicle certification labels gross vehicle weight rating and gross axle weight rating information expressed in kilograms. The metric units would be used in addition to information expressed in pounds, with the English units appearing first on the label and the metric units following in parenthesis. Our certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) provide that this information is to be specified in pounds.

The inclusion of metric weight ratings in addition to the English units specified in our regulation (with the English units appearing first) has previously been approved in an agency interpretation letter, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, your proposed certification labels are authorized under the certification regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure (6/30/76 letter from J. Womack to Toyota omitted here)

February 6, 1984

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The Harley-Davidson Motor Company would like to add metric equivalents to the vehicle weight ratings on its Certification Labels.

An example of the addition would be the following (sample label attached):

Present Proposed

GVWR: 1085 GVWR 1085 LB (493 KG) GAWR: Front-390 with ... GAWR F 390 LB (177 KG) with ...

GAWR: Rear-695 with ... GAWR R 695 LB (316 KG) with ...

Part 567 seems neither to permit nor to prohibit additional information on the Certification Label. Showing metric equivalents would be helpful in export of our motorcycles and would be consistent with a general objective of reducing international trade barriers.

We would appreciate a statement of concurrence from the Office of Chief Counsel.

Sincerely,

John H. Schmidt, P.E. Certification Supervisor

/pat Attachment

cc: Paul Golde, MIC Walter MacKay, MMIC

ID: nht81-1.47

DATE: 03/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Aluminum Body Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Howard Magor, President Aluminum Body Corporation P.O. Box 40 Montebello, CA 90690

Dear Mr. Magor

This is in response to your letter forwarding your firm's vehicle identification numbering system and requesting confirmation that it complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 -Vehicle identification number.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not give advance approval of a manufacturer's compliance with motor vehicle safety standards or regulations, as it is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to ensure that its vehicles comply with the applicable safety standards. However, my office has reviewed your proposed system. Based on our understanding of the information which you have provided, your system apparently complies with Standard No. 115.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13, 1980

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, PA 15096

Attention: Leo P. Ziegler, Jr., Mgr.

Motor Veh. Safety & Environment Program

Reference: Change in Assigned WMI Code

Aluminum Body Corporation would like to verify a change in our assigned WMI Code number per our telephone conversation of October 8, 1980 with Mr. Nelson Erickson of the NHTSA. Mr. Erickson arranged with SAE to change our identifier number from a six (6) digit code (per enclosed copy of SAE letter dated Dec. 18, 1979) to a three (3) digit code number.

We wish to confirm with SAE that our selection of "1-1-A" as the first three digits of Aluminum Body Corporation's VIN has been approved by SAE. Please advise us if our proposed coding for the VIN is correct, and if we are approved to use this as the identification numbering system for manufacturing of our trailers. Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

ALUMINUM BODY CORPORATION

Howard Magor President

HHM:jo encls. (2)

cc: Mr. Nelson Erickson NHTSA

ID: 8830

Mr. Kenneth E. Ross
752 Hillpine Terrace
Atlanta, GA 30306

Dear Mr. Ross:

This responds to your letter requesting information about a product that attaches to an automobile's back window. In a telephone conversation with Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that your product is a two to three inch high LED sign that extends along most of the rear window. The sign displays any message that the driver chooses. While we do not have information about State or local laws, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain the applicability of Federal law on your product.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs).

In response to your question, NHTSA currently has no FMVSSs that directly apply to the product you wish to manufacture. I note, however, that there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect you and your product. Under the Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

Automotive accessory equipment that a dealer adds before sale of a vehicle must not create a noncompliance with the FMVSSs to which the vehicle manufacturer has certified compliance. For instance, your LED sign should be mounted so that it does not block the field of view required by FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors. Similarly, for the vehicle to remain in compliance, your system must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. In particular, the placement of your sign might impair the effectiveness of the center highmounted stop lamp (CHMSL) if it can be operated simultaneously with the CHMSL or at a time when the turn signals are flashing.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...." It is conceivable that your product, when placed on a vehicle's rear window, could "render inoperative" the vehicle's ability to comply with FMVSS No. 108 and FMVSS No. 111. Persons in the aforementioned categories that install your product must ensure that such installation does not render inoperative the safety protection provided by the applicable standards. Specifically, your product should be mounted so that it does not interfere with the CHMSL or turn signal lamps nor block the field-of-view required by FMVSS No. 111.

The "render inoperative" prohibition of 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, if your product were placed on a rear window by the vehicle owner, then the render inoperative provision would not apply. Nevertheless, in the interest of safety, you should ensure that your product does not adversely affect a vehicle's rear lamps or rearward visibility.

We are unable to advise you as to whether the laws of any State address this topic. You should consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion. Its address is 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:108#111 d:8/13/93

ID: 1990y

Thomas A. Coz, Esq.
Senior Attorney
North American Van Lines
Law Department
P.O. Box 988
Fort Wayne, IN 46801-0988

Dear Mr. Coz:

This is in reply to your letter of April 28, l989, with respect to the legality under Standard No. l08 of supplemental lighting devices that North American Van Lines has installed on some of its trailers. To assist us in answering your question, you have enclosed a photograph of a trailer retrofitted with the supplemental devices, and a videocassette. However, the "Final Specs" sheets referenced in your letter were not enclosed.

The lamps in question are stop lamps/turn signal lamps which are mounted above the maximum mounting heights specified in Standard No. l08. You believe that this is permissible because they are supplemental to the original equipment stop and turn signal lamps which are mounted within the limits specified in the standard. However, the Department of California Highway Patrol has informed you that this agency does not differentiate between original and supplemental equipment, and requires that both original and supplemental lighting equipment must conform to the mounting requirements.

We are not aware of the basis of the California opinion. The only requirement of Standard No. l08 for supplemental lighting equipment on vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale is the restraint of paragraph S5.l.3 that they not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by the standard.

Retrofit by North American Van Lines itself of its own vehicles after the first purchase for purposes other than resale is permissible under Federal law. However, if the retrofit were performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business, the operation would be subject to the restraint of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (l5 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) that it not render inoperative, in whole or in part, lighting equipment installed in accordance with Standard No. l08. Subject to these constraints, a mounting height that exceeds the maximum specified by Standard No. l08 is permissible for supplemental lighting equipment. We interpret "partially inoperative" as also meaning "partially ineffective". The location of your lamps as shown in the photograph you enclosed does not appear to "render inoperative" any other lighting device or affect its effectiveness.

We note that the retrofitted trailer in the videocassette does not appear to be equipped with the identification lamps required by Standard No. l08. Further, unless the clearance lamps are combined with the supplemental stop/turn signals in both the videocassette and the photograph you enclosed, they too appear to be missing. If the clearance lamps are combined with the supplementary lamps, care should be taken that the supplementary lamps do not "render inoperative" the clearance lamps. Although, as noted above, the Act permits an owner to modify his vehicle in a nonconforming manner, the operation of your interstate highway trailer is subject to the regulations of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, which require that identification and clearance lamps be provided for these trailers.

We are returning your videocassette.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA Sec. l08 d:8/24/89

ID: nht80-1.22

DATE: 03/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Diesel Fuel Saver, Jay Blanchard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 8, 1980, letter requesting confirmation of statements made to you by an NHTSA engineer, Robert Williams. Apparently, Mr. Williams stated that your product, the "Diesel Fuel Saver," would comply with Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75).

As you describe the product, the "Diesel Fuel Saver" is a piece of aftermarket equipment that can be readily attached to diesel fuel systems to heat the fuel and ostensibly increase fuel economy. However, Safety Standard No. 301-75 is only applicable to new vehicles and, therefore, would not apply to motor vehicle equipment such as yours unless it is installed on new vehicles. Further, Safety Standard No. 301-75 does not specify design requirements for individual components of fuel systems. Rather, the standard specifies performance requirements that must be achieved by vehicle fuel systems during barrier crash tests.

There are no other safety standards that would be applicable to your product. However, you would be responsible under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), our enabling authority, for any defects in the "Diesel Fuel Saver" relating to motor vehicle safety. This means that you would have to notify purchasers of your product of any such defects that might exist and remedy those defects at your own expense.

Although Safety Standard No. 301-75 is not directly applicable to the "Diesel Fuel Saver," the standard does create responsibilities for certain persons who may install the product.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business may knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that none of the mentioned persons, which could include your own company, would be permitted to install the "Diesel Fuel Saver" on a motor vehicle if the equipment would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301-75 (or any other applicable safety standard). Therefore, as a responsible manufacturer, you should determine whether vehicles can meet the performance requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 301-75 with your product installed. The prohibition in section 108(a)(2)(A) only applies to those persons mentioned above. Therefore, a private individual (the vehicle owner, for example) could install the "Diesel Fuel Saver" with impunity, regardless of whether the vehicle thereafter complies with Safety Standard No. 301-75. This, of course, would not remove your liability in private litigation.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

D.F.S.

DIESEL FUEL SAVER

February 8, 1980

Office of the Chief Counsel Debra Winer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mrs. Winer:

I talked with Bob Williams at 1-202-426-1828 and I told him about our unit and he said that the unit we have would meet the MVSS-301 Safety Standards.

What I would like you to do if you would is to say what Bob Williams said and put it in black and white so that if we are asked about it then we can say that it does meet the requirements.

The only thing we are doing is using the water from the radiator block to heat the fuel(we have a water jacket and a coil inside a steel jacket and the water goes through that and heats the fuel and then we have a plug in heater so that when the vehicle is not in use then it can be heated so that you have hot fuel.

Enclosed is some information concerning the Presca Diesel Fuel Saver that I'm sure will help you understand how it works and that there is no way that our unit has any danger to it.

I shall look forward to hearing from you.

For information purposes: We are getting 14% increase in mileage on Long Haul Trucks. 17-30% on Farm Tractors, A V W Rabbitt was getting 43 MPG and we brought it to 55 around town and 60 on the highway.

The prices run: $ 299 $ 269 & $ 249 for each one.

Jay Blanchard Administrative Assistant

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht75-1.15

DATE: 06/06/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Alfred Teves GMBH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 29, 1975, question whether S5.4.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, permits a brake fluid warning statement on a filler cap to be partially obscured by two "contact blades" on the cap which apparently are inserted into a receptacle attached to the vehicle. The description you enclose is similar to one submitted with an earlier request which we evaluated in a March 3, 1975, letter to your representative, Mr. Paul Utans.

Sections S5.4.3 (b) requires that the statement be "located so as to be visible by direct view." As noted in our March 3 letter, this requirement prohibits an arrangement which would obscure any part of the statement. We also noted that S5.4.3(b) permits a location within 4 inches of the brake fluid reservoir filler plug or cap to accommodate arrangements which do not permit use of the fuller cap as a location.

From the drawing you enclose, we conclude that the contact blades obscure part of the warning and it therefore would not comply with the requirement of S5.4.3(b). As an enforcement matter, we would find it impossible to allow a "minor noncompliance" and still be able to enforce a standard objectively. We do not consider the ability to turn the cap to expose the warning to constitute "visible by direct view."

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

Richard B. Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

April 29, 1973

Subject: Your Letter Dated March 3, 1975 to Mr. Paul Utans - N40-30 (TWH)

Dear Mr. Dyson,

In our inquiry of January 19, 1975, we informed you about 2 variants of our brake fluid reservoir filler cap with imprinted designation according to FMVSS 105-75 S. 5.4.3 asking you to examine them with regard to legality.

In your letter dated March 3, 1975 you rejected the version with contact blades displaced by 180 degrees because the fully insulated contact blades would partially obscure the statement. This design will therefore not reach the production stage. However, we intend to sell in the USA the version which only has two contact blades which are parallel to each other and are not insulated.

We believe that this design guarantees visibility of the statement by direct view which is required in S. 5.4.3. Furthermore we hold the view that this very important statement must still be visible after a 10 years' utilization in the vehicle.

According to our experience made with stickers or stamps, this requirement cannot be met since durable fixing of the warning statement cannot be ensured due to brake fluid running out and wetting of the sticker or stamp connected herewith as well as due to salt spray liquid and the like. In our opinion, such a warning statement which will not be legible after several service years, cannot be regarded as being within the meaning of this safety law.

We therefore kindly ask you to accept the stamping on the filler cap since this design ensures absolute and durable legibility. A further advantage would be that, when opening the filler cap, you automatically have to read the designation.

Finally we wish to refer to the 360 degrees turning capability of the contact blades so that the complete text can be seen at any time.

We kindly request you to re-examine our inquiry, and remain.

Yours truly,

ALFRED TEVES GMBH

(Beller)

(Dr. Strien)

Encl.:

3-04011-29

cc: P. Utans, Englewood

ID: nht94-3.16

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 1, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/9/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack, letter dated 5/12/89 from Donald W. Vierimaa to Billy Mohr, and letter dated 5/16/89 from Billy Mohr to Donald W. Vierimaa

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning whether a section of the Michigan Motor Vehicle Code is preempted by Federal law. I apologize for the delay in our response.

This issue apparently arose in correspondence between you and the Michigan Department of State Police in May 1989. Under Section 719(8)(c) of the Michigan Code, a "semitrailer" whose overall length is more than 50 feet is required to be equipped with "tw o clearance lamps, 1 on each side of the semitrailer, located at 1/2 the distance from the front to the rear and as near to the top of the semitrailer as practicable." In your letter of May 12, 1989, to the State Police you stated your assumption that th e "two clearance lamps" are the "intermediate side marker lamps" specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 10*8, and, if Michigan is requiring two additional intermediate side marker lamps "then it would appear that your requirement is inval id as FMVSS 108 preempts State regulations which substantially differ." In support of your views, you provided Michigan with copies of relevant NHTSA interpretations.

Michigan replied on May 16, 1989, that NHTSA had not notified it that "the requirement of an additional 'clearance lamp' as near as to the top of the semitrailer as practicable is preempted by section 103(d)", and that "the lamp is not a marker lamp as m entioned in 1.7 of the DOT interpretations." You indicate that this is a reference to our letter of December 10, 1974, to the California Highway Patrol. You ask for our concurrence in your conclusion that Michigan is preempted from enforcing its requirem ents.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on motor vehicle lighting is 49 CFR 571.108 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT. Table II of Standard No. 108 applies, in pertinent part, to trailers of 80 or more inches overall width, and requires them to be equipped with front and rear side marker lamps as far to the front and to the rear as practicable, and with "intermediate side marker lamps", amber in color, "located at or near the midpoint between the front and rear side marker lamps." All side marker lamps are to be mounted not less than 15 inches above the road surface. However, paragraph S5.1.1.3 states that intermediate side marker devices are not required on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length.

Section 1O3 (d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) states that whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, no State "shall have any authority either to

establish or continue in effect with respect to any motor vehicle . . . any safety standard APPLICABLE TO THE SAME ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE OF SUCH VEHICLE. . . which is not identical to the Federal standard" (emphasis added). In our opinion, the "aspect of performance" covered by Section 719 (8) (c) of the Michigan Code is the side conspicuity of extra long trailers, the same "aspect of performance" that is addressed by the requirements of Table II that I have discussed in the preceding paragraph.

Because Standard No. 108 specifically addresses what lamps must be provided on trailers more than 50 feet in length for purposes of side conspicuity, any State requirement that such trailers be equipped with a supplementary set of lamps for purposes of s ide conspicuity is preempted by Federal law. The fact that Michigan calls the lamp a "clearance" lamp rather than a "marker" lamp does not affect this conclusion, since the relevant aspect of performance addressed by the lamps in question is side conspic uity. The purpose of the preemption clause is to relieve the burden on interstate commerce that would result from a manufacturer having to meet more than one set of safety requirements to address the same safety concern. It does not affect the right of a State to establish its own safety requirements in areas where there are no Federal ones.

The interpretation provided the California Highway Patrol is consistent with this one. There we advised that to the extent that California law prohibited multiple marker lamps or prescribed different mounting requirements other than as permitted by Stand ard No. 108 those laws were preempted by section 103(d).

ID: 1982-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transamerica Transportation Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you requested information on any requirements concerning the use of imported casings for regrooving and imported casings for retreading. When retreaded or regrooved, these tires would be used on your company's trailers ("intermodel piggyback equipment"). Following are the answers to the four questions in your letter.

(1) May tires be imported for regrooving and, if so, are there any conditions necessary, such as DOT number or "regroovable tire" parking on the casing? To answer your question about importing tires for regrooving, it is necessary to explain the conditions under which tires may be imported for retreading. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a June 18, 1981 letter I sent to the National Tire Dealers & Retreaders Association, which sets forth the conditions under which used casings may legally be imported into the United States for purposes of retreading. The letter explains that tires with less than 2/32 inch of remaining tread which are imported solely so that they can be retreaded are not considered "items of motor vehicle equipment," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Therefore, the DOT certification symbol need not appear on the sidewall of these casings.

Further, there is no NHTSA standard applicable to retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Hence, there are not requirements which the imported tires must meet in order to be retreaded or after they are retreaded.

The same reasoning set forth above regarding casings to be retreaded would apply to casings imported for regrooving. Thus, no DOT certification symbol would be required to appear on the sidewall of the casings in order for the tires to be imported.

There is, however, an important distinction between retreaded tires (not for use on a passenger car) and regrooved tires. While the former are not subject to any NHTSA regulations, the latter are subject to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires (copy enclosed). That regulation specifies that the only tires which may be regrooved are those which are marked "regroovable" on both sidewalls by the manufacturer (or retreader) (@ 569.9), and sets forth certain requirements which the tire must meet after regrooving (@ 569.7(a)(2)). Any tire not marked with the word "regroovable" on both sidewalls cannot legally be regrooved, so all casings imported for regrooving are required to have this marking.

Hence, there are three conditions which must be met by all casings imported for regrooving. These are: (a) the actual tread pattern remaining on the casing must be less than 2/32 of an inch deep;

(b) the casing must be imported solely for regrooving, and will not be used or sold "as is"; and

(c) the word "regroovable" must be marked on both sidewalls of each casing.

If you require further information on the actual mechanics of clearing these casings through customs, and the applicable duties, I suggest you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U. S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. Mr. Feese's telephone number is (202) 566-8651.

(2) If regroovable imported tires are legal, are there any limitations on the types of trailers they may be put on, that is, original or used equipment? Yes, there are limitations on the installation of regrooved tires. This agency's regulations apply only to new vehicles, so they are applicable to the use of regrooved tires as original equipment on new trailers. Specifically, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR @ 571.120), (copy enclosed) applies to all new trailers. Section S5.1 of that standard sets forth the tire and rim selection requirements applicable to new trailers equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service. For the manufacturer to install regrooved tires on a new trailer, section S5.1.3 specifies that three conditions must be satisfied. These are:

(a) the regrooved tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser;

(b) the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle; and

(c) the regrooved tires must have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall to show that the tire, when new, was certified as complying with Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. This third condition arises because regrooved tires are considered "used tires" within the meaning of section S5.1.3.

The third condition just mentioned makes it unlikely that regrooved tires produced from imported casings could be mounted by a trailer manufacturer on a new trailer, because those casings are unlikely to have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall. Please note, however, that Standard No. 120 applies only to trailers which are equipped with tires for highway service. Your company, as a purchaser, is free to order the new trailer delivered to you without any tires installed. The purchaser is then free to install any tires he may choose, without violating this agency's requirements.

Regarding your question about limitations on the use of regrooved tires on used trailers, that area is not regulated by this agency. However, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the Federal Highway Administration has issued an applicable regulation for equipment used in interstate commerce. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR @ 393.75, which sets forth the requirements for tires used in interstate commerce. This regulation prohibits the use of regrooved tires above a certain load-carrying capacity on the front wheels of trucks and truck tractors, but it does not appear to prohibit the use of regrooved tires on trailers. You may want to check with Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson, Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, to confirm that regrooved tires may be mounted on trailers to be used in interstate commerce.

(3) Are there any restrictions on the type of equipment capped foreign casings can be put on? The same provisions set forth above regulating the use of regrooved tires on new and used equipment are applicable for determining whether retreaded tires may be mounted on new and used equipment. For the manufacturer to install retreaded tires on a new trailer, section S5.1.3 sets forth two conditions which must be satisfied. These are:

(a) the retreaded tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser; and

(b) The sum of the maximum load ratings of the retreaded tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle.

You will notice that retreaded tires to be used on new equipment do not have to meet the third condition specified above for the use of regrooved tires, i.e., retreaded tires are not required to have a DOT certification symbol on the sidewall. The reason retreaded tires are not required to meet this condition is that NHTSA has interpreted the term "used tires" in section S5.1.3 of Standard No. 120 as not including retreaded tires.

Regarding the use of retreaded tires on used equipment to be employed in interstate commerce, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety does not appear to have any restrictions on the use of retreaded tires on trailers. The general restrictions that the sum of the load ratings of the tires mounted on an axle be at least equal to the load on the axle applies regardless of whether the tires are new, retreaded, or regrooved (49 CFR @ 393.75(f)(2)). Again, you may want to confirm this with that agency.

(4) Are there structural or physical (marking) requirements on foreign casings imported for recapping? As noted in response to your first question, there is no requirement that casings imported for retreading have a DOT symbol on the sidewall. Further, since there is no NHTSA standard applicable to the retreading of these tires, there are no structural requirements which the casings must satisfy. I would, however, urge your company to take all reasonable steps to assure the structural integrity of any casings which are imported for retreading for your company.

After the casing has been retreaded, 49 CFR Part 574.5 (copy enclosed) requires that the retreader of the imported casing put its identification number on the sidewall of each tire it retreads. This permits the agency to identify the retreader of the tire should that be necessary. The identification number need not appear on tires which are retreaded solely for the retreader's own use, since it is obvious who retreaded those tires.

You should note that the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety prohibits retreaded tires without load markings from being mounted on the front wheels of trucks used in interstate commerce, except for two particular types of vehicles. Again, if you have any further questions as to that agency's regulations concerning the use of retreaded tires, you should contact that agency directly.

I would be happy to help if you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

ENCLS.

Transamerica Transportation Services Inc

November 8, 1982

Stephen Kratzke U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Transamerica Transportation Services is the largest lessor of intermodal piggyback equipment and, as such, purchases a large number of tires for the equipment.

We have been recently looking into the feasibility of using recapped Japanese casings and regrooved Japanese casings on our equipment and it seems the more people we talk to concerning the legality of these tires, the more varied opinions we receive. Specifically, we are looking for the answers to the following questions and we would appreciate your opinions, be they legal or otherwise, and any pertinent DOT laws:

1. May tires be imported for regrooving and, if so, are there any conditions necessary such as DOT number or "regroovable tire" marking on the casing?

2. If regroovable imported tires are legal, are there any limitations on the type of trailers they may be put on, that is, original or used equipment?

3. Are there any restrictions on the type of equipment capped foreign casings can be put on?

4. Are there structural or physical (marking) requirements on foreign casings imported for capping?

Any information on these questions would be greatly appreciated.

Neil Mark Manager, Technical Services

ID: 1983-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Young; Member of Congress

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Robert A. Young Member of Congress 4150 Cypress Road St. Ann, MO 63074

Dear Mr. Young:

Thank you for your letter of October 13, 1983, concerning the potential hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the use of opaque glass in automobiles. Through the exercise of its motor vehicle safety authority, the agency has addressed a part of this potential problem. However, given the limitations on the agency's authority, additional State action is needed to eliminate this potential problem.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. The specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

In past interpretation letters, the agency has said that solar film and other materials used to make windows opaque are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. If a manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to the first sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter the vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting or other film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not the installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of the glazing. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed to comply with a Federal safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a tinting or other film on a vehicle for an owner if that action would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance perfomance of the vehicle's glazing. Violation of the render inoperative provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to ,000 for each violation.

State law, rather than Federal law, governs the operational use of vehicles by their owners. Thus, it is up to the States to preclude owners from applying tinting or other films to their vehicle windows. A number of States have already adopted such laws. The agency would be glad to provide technical assistance on glazing requirements to the appropriate Missouri highway safety officials working on this problem.

I hope this explains the agency's authority to address the potential problems posed by tinting and other films. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

Ms. Diane Steed Administrator-Designate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Steed,

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. James Stewart, Director of the National Institute of Justice, in regard to potential safety hazards posed to law enforcement officials by the presence of opaque glass in automobiles. As you will note, Mr. Stewart feels your Agency might be of some assistance in this matter.

I would appreciate your review of the potential dangers of this situation. Please advise me of your findings by writing my district office in St. Ann, Missouri.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Robert A. Young Member of Congress

RAY:wv

Enclosure

The Honorable Robert A. Young House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Young:

This is in response to your letter on behalf of Overland Police Chief Eddy Williams concerning the problem of opaque glass in automobiles.

As a former chief of the detective division of the Oakland, California, Police Department, I can appreciate Chief Williams' concern about this possible hazard to law enforcement officers. At present, the National Institute of Justice has no information on this problem. However, I have asked my staff to look into the matter and will keep you apprised of our findings.

Meanwhile, I would suggest that Chief Williams contact the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. 20590, regarding this growing danger. The NHTSA conducts programs relating to the safety of motor vehicles and provides Federal matching funds to assist States with their motor vehicle safety programs. Perhaps the NHTSA could help in alerting States and automobile manufacturers to the danger opaque glass in autos presents to police officers who must stop and approach such vehicles without being able to see the persons inside.

Thank you for your interest in the well being of the Nation's public safety officers. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

James R. Stewart Director National Institute of Justice

ID: 12420.jeg

Mr. Al Farshchian
President
Air Bag Technology, Inc.
15 Hammond, Suite 304
Irvine, CA 92718

Dear Mr. Farshchian:

This responds to your letters concerning two devices that you have designed to deactivate passenger air bags under certain circumstances. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You call the first device an "air bag deployment restrictor." This device would detect a passenger's size and distance from the air bag and automatically deactivate the air bag under circumstances in which deployment would "prove hazardous." The second device would allow the owner of "any motor vehicle containing a passenger side air bag to able or disable that air bag with the flick of a switch without disabling the entire air bag system." I note that we would categorize your first device as an "automatic" cut-off device, and your second device as a "manual" cut-off device. You indicated that the devices might be sold in the aftermarket or for installation during the manufacture of the vehicle. You asked whether these devices are permitted under Department of Transportation regulations. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles or equipment meet all applicable standards.

One of the standards issued by this agency is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Manufacturers install air bags in passenger cars and light trucks in order to comply with this standard.

If either of your devices were installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer would be required to certify that, with the device installed, the vehicle satisfies the requirements of all applicable safety standards, including Standard No. 208. If the device were added to a previously certified new motor vehicle prior to its first consumer purchase, then the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration.

NHTSA has previously addressed the question of whether automatic cut-off devices and manual cut-off devices are permitted for passenger air bags under Standard No. 208. The standard does not preclude the use of automatic cut-off devices for passenger air bags so long as the dummy performance requirements are met in the specific dynamic crash conditions specified in the standard. For example, an unbelted 50th percentile male passenger dummy would have to be protected in the barrier crash test or alternative sled test specified by the standard.

Standard No. 208 expressly addresses the circumstances under which manual cut-off devices are permitted. See S4.5.4. The standard limits the types of vehicles which are permitted to have manual cut-off devices and also specifies a number of requirements for manual cut-off devices that must be satisfied. For example, the manual cut-off device must deactivate the air bag by means of the ignition key and require manual reactivation of the air bag once deactivated. The standard also specifies certain requirements for an accompanying warning light, and the option for manual cut-off devices is only available for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 2000.

I have enclosed a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and the final rule establishing Standard No. 208's requirements for manual cut-off switches, as well as a recent final rule extending the option until September 1, 2000. I have also enclosed a copy of an NPRM. addressing air bag deactivation, which discusses manual cut-off switches as a possible means of deactivation.

I also note that, since both of your devices would include indicator lights, you should also check whether they would comply with Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays.

If one of your devices were installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a dealer or repair business, then the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, Federal law prohibits dealers and repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative devices, such as air bags, installed to comply with a safety standard. See 49 U.S.C. 30122. In general, this "make inoperative" prohibition would prevent a dealer or repair business from installing one of your devices if the effect of such installation would be to take the vehicle out of compliance with one or more safety standards. For example, a dealer or repair business could not add manual cut-off devices to types of vehicles for which such devices are prohibited, but could add them to types of vehicles for which they are permitted (assuming all of the conditions specified in Standard No. 208 are met). The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications made by persons to their own vehicles. Such modifications may, however, be covered by State laws.

Enclosed is an information sheet we have prepared to provide general information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Also enclosed is a copy of an information sheet explaining how to obtain copies of our standards.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
d:3/31/97