ID: 1985-02.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Carl R. Ball

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 20, 1985, asking whether Safety Standards Nos. 212 and 219 prohibit the mounting of police spotlights on the door post of a vehicle. None of our standards prohibit such a mounting; however, the mounting must be done in a manner that the vehicle still complies with our safety standards. The following discussion more fully explains the effect of the agency's standards on spotlight mounting.

If the spotlight is mounted on a new vehicle before its first purchase, for purposes other than resale, the person installing the spotlight would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Since the A pillar of the vehicle would have to be altered to install the spotlight, the installation could affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 212, Windshield Retention, as well as Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. If the spotlight is mounted away from the windshield, it does not appear that the installation would affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

If the alteration is made after a vehicle's first purchase, then section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair shop may knowingly render inoperative an element of design installed in compliance with our safety standards. Thus, if any of those persons install a spotlight they must ensure that they have not rendered inoperative the vehicle's compliance with our standards.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners. However, the agency urges owners that alter their vehicles not to defeat safety equipment installed in the vehicle.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company

Police Department

February 20, 1985

239

Diane K. Steed Administrator The National Highway Safety Administration Attn: Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Steed:

We have reviewed Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No. 212-76 and 219, regarding windshield mounting and windshield zone intrusion, respectively and we are requesting you opinion with respect to the application of these standards to police vehicles. Specifically, do one or both of these standards prohibit the mounting of standard police spotlights on the door post of the vehicle on either side?

Carl R. Ball Chief of Police

ID: 86-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/25/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Paul Miller -- Sales Manager, Arizona Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Miller Sales Manager Arizona Bus Sales, Inc. 4001 South 34th Street P.O. Box 21226 Phoenix, Arizona 85036

This responds to your February 27, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking us to clarify Federal requirements applying to the sale of school buses. You first asked whether a dealership that sells 15-passenger vans to a private school violates Federal law if the vans do not comply with our motor vehicle safety standards for school buses. the answer to your question is yes. As we explained in our previous letter to you dated June 24, 1985, NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to regulate the manufacture and sale of all new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under Federal law, a "bus" is a vehicle designed to carry children to and from school or school-related events. We require persons selling new buses to ensure that those vehicles comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards when they are sold for purposes that include carrying school children. A person who sells a new bus for pupil transportation purposes would be subject to civil penalties under the Vehicle Safety Act if the bus does not comply with Federal school bus safety standards. Your second question asked whether the lease between the dealership and the school could be dissolved since the sale involved noncomplying buses. While we have no regulations which void or "dissolve" sales of noncomplying motor vehicles, the school might be able to contact the dealership that sold the noncomplying school buses and arrange to have the vehicles repurchased or modified to meet Federal school bus safety standards. In addition, the school should contact NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, at the address given above, and inform them of the apparent violation of Federal law. In the past, many dealers who have been notified by NHTSA of the illegality of selling noncomplying vans as school vehicles repurchased the vehicles that were sold in violation of the law. Your final question asked about an October 15, 1982 memorandum from Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division regarding Arizona's school bus definition to buses used to carry school children to school-related activities. You believed that this interpretation conflicted with Federal law and asked for clarification of the matter. It is important to separate NHTSA's regulations for school buses from state school bus regulations. State regulations apply to the use of motor vehicles. Your state's definition of a "school bus" is thus relevant for determining the state requirements applicable to school bus use. The consequence of Arizona determining that activity buses could not be considered "school buses" under state law was to exclude those vehicles from its vehicle use laws for school buses. On the other hand, as explained above, Federal regulations apply to the manufacture and sale of new school buses. Our "school bus" definition is relevant for determining manufacturers' compliance with certifying their vehicles to the school bus safety standards and sellers' compliance with Federal requirements to sell complying school buses. Since our "school bus" definition includes buses sold to transport school children to school-related events, persons who sell new vehicles designed to carry 10 or more passengers to persons intending to use the buses for that purpose must sell complying school buses. Whether the vehicle is considered a school bus under state regulations does not affect the responsibility of manufacturers and sellers to comply with Federal law. I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 11893.DF

Mr. Simon Clarke
Clarke Safety Products
621 Bayshore Dr.
Tarpon Springs, FL 34689

Dear Mr. Clarke:

This responds to your letter asking several questions about the responsibilities associated with Agrooving windshields.@ We assume you refer to the process of grinding grooves into the lower portion of a windshield. The purpose of the grooves is to improve the efficacy of the windshield wipers.

I have enclosed copies of two letters on this subject, both addressed to Mr. Andrew Kallman, dated March 1, 1985 and October 28, 1988. These letters explain how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration=s (NHTSA=s) regulations would apply if the grooves are ground into a windshield of a new vehicle, into a windshield sold as an item of replacement equipment, or into a windshield of a used vehicle.

Those letters address the issues you raise, and I will refer to them from time to time in answering your specific questions.

Question 1. Are you able to alter a previously certified item of motor vehicle equipment covered by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205?

Answer: Our answer is yes, provided that certain requirements are met. As explained in the enclosed March 1985 letter, if the grooves are ground into the windshield of a new vehicle or into a new windshield sold as replacement equipment, the person making the grooves would have to ensure that the glazing continues to comply with all of the requirements of Standard 205. If the grooves are ground into the windshield of a used vehicle, any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business must not make inoperative the compliance of the vehicle=s glazing with Standard 205. Individual owners may alter their vehicles as they please, as long as they adhere to all State requirements.

Question 2. If you did alter a previously certified item, could you now be construed the manufacturer and should now be perceived a Glazing Manufacturer with an I.D.#?

The answer depends on how the glazing is altered. NHTSA issues a manufacturer=s code mark only to "prime glazing manufacturers," which is defined at S6.1 as Aone who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." If your company does not alter glazing in those ways (and merely adding grooves does not), you would not need, and NHTSA would not issue, a manufacturer=s code mark.

Question 3. If one now is to become a Glazing Manufacturer, how does one do so and how does one receive a Glazing I.D.#?

Prime glazing material manufacturers may receive a manufacturer=s code mark by writing NHTSA at the following address: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA, Room 6111, Washington D.C., 20590 (telephone (202) 366-2832).

Question 4. For me now to proceed and groove windshields, what steps must I take to abide by the law and to hold my liabilities to a minimum and not be deemed negligent?

Our statute does not permit NHTSA to assure any person or entity that its product or processes comply with all applicable requirements or to Aapprove@ some product or process. Instead, our statute requires the manufacturer itself to certify that its products comply with all applicable safety standards, and to ensure they are free of safety-related defects.

The enclosed copies of the Kellman letters discuss your responsibilities for meeting NHTSA=s requirements, including Standard 205. You should also be aware of State requirements. In addition, you may want to check with a private attorney for your responsibilities under State tort law.

Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:205 d:6/18/96

2

ID: 1985-01.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gordan Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, New York 13045-2040

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1985, asking for an interpretation of the humidity testing procedure for replaceable bulb headlamps.

Paragraph S6.8 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 states in pertinent part that after completion of the test cycle in which the headlamp shall have been in an environment of 100oF with a relative humidity of 90+105, it shall then be in an environment with a temperature of 73oF and relative humidity of 30+10% before removal for photometric testing. You believe that this implies an instantaneous transition in temperature/humidity conditions which, in your view, is "impossible to achieve." You have set forth three alternative procedures and ask which is the most acceptable to this agency.

Under your first alternative, the temperature and humidity in the humidity chamber would be reduced to 73oF-43%;, requiring about an hour) whereupon the headlamp would be removed to a "dry box" chamber of the requisite temperature/ humidity before photometric testing. In the second alternative, there would be no such removal before the photometric testing. In the third alternative, the headlamp would be removed from the humidity chamber and immediately carried to a "dry box" with the requisite temperature/ humidity; however, in your test set up this would require three to five minutes elapsed time between chambers.

Paragraph S6.8 does not specify a humidity of 43% in any of its test conditions, and a procedure incorporating the first and second alternatives clearly would not be in accordance with paragraph S6.8. That paragraph, however, does not specify that the temperature/humidity sequences must occur in the same chamber but it does imply that the lower temperature/ humidity soak should take place directly following the higher temperature/humidity one. Therefore, your third alternative is the one that meets the intent of paragraph S6.8. To insure consistency of results, we recommend that no transfer period exceed three minutes and that the headlamp be exposed as briefly and as little as possible to the ambient temperature/humidity of the test laboratory.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Subject: Interpretation of Testing Procedure FMVSS 108 Replaceable Bulb Headlamps

Paragraph S6.8 Humidity of FMVSS 108 states a test procedure which implies a headlamp should undergo an instantaneous transition in temperature/ humidity conditions from 100oF-90% relative humidity (tolerances have been omitted here) to 73oF-30% R.H. This, of course, is impossible to achieve. The attached discussion suggests possible testing procedures to resolve the problem. I request an interpretation on which is acceptable and if none are, please clarify how the test can and should be performed. We expect to have headlamps to test within the next couple of weeks, so prompt consideration would be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division

GB/mm Enclosure

Docket No. 81-11

Replaceable Bulb Headlamp

FMVSS 108 Paragraph S6.8 Humidity The present ruling requires the headlamp to be subjected to a controlled environment of 100oF + 9o and a relative humidity of 90% + 10%. Following the 20 consecutive 6 hour test cycles, the headlamp is to be "soaked" for 1 hour at 73oF (20oC) and a relative humidity of 30% + 10% before it is removed for photometric testing.

Most environmental chambers (Thermotron, Blue M, for example) do not have the capabilities to reduce the humidity to 30% (or 40%) at the 73oF temperature. We have constructed a special chamber which is capable of about 35% RH at 73oF although this is very dependent on the room ambient temperature and humidity. This chamber is located near the Photometric test range so we can perform the following photometric test in a very short time. Unfortunately, this chamber is located a couple hundred feet from the standard environmental chamber. At the completion of the humidity test, we must remove the headlamp and carry it to the "dry box" for the one hour soak. Men the headlamp is removed from the 100oF environmental chamber, it immediately is subjected to a cooler room ambient, perhaps 65o -70oF and 60% RH.

We have experimented with a procedure which reduces the temperatures humidity of the environmental chamber following the normal humidity cycles, to a range of 73oF and about 43% RH. This procedure takes about one hour to accomplish. We cannot get the humidity any lower with prolonged operation of the chamber. Following this procedure, the headlamp is carried to the "dry box" for the one hour soak.

I know of no standard environmental chambers which can operate at 100oF - 90% RH and reduce in conditions to 73oF - 30 + 10% RH within a short enough period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, period to allow a one hour soak at the final temperature/humidity conditions, other than s chamber designed for thermal shock and these have no humidity control.

I request an interpretation on which of the described procedures should be used.

1. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, transfer headlamp to the 73oF - 30 + 10% RH dry box for one hour followed by the photometric test.

2. Following the humidity test, reduce the temperature and humidity in the chamber to 73oF - 43% RH in a one hour period, followed by the photometric test.

3. Following the humidity test, remove the headlamp from the humidity chamber, carry it at room ambient conditions (approximately three minutes - five minutes) to the dry box and soak at 73oF and 30 + 10% RH for one hour followed by the photometric test.

If none of these alternatives is acceptable, please clarify exactly how the test can and should be performed.

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc. February 4, 1985

ID: 11540.JEG

Mr. Robert J. Bishop
Manager--Inflator Engineering
BAICO
1501 Midpark Road
Knoxville, Tennessee 37921

Dear Mr. Bishop:

This responds to your letter asking about Standard No. 208's requirements for pressure vessels that are continuously pressurized. Section S9.1 of the standard incorporates certain provisions of the Hazardous Materials Regulations issued by DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). You noted that you have recently received an exemption from RSPA concerning one of those provisions, 49 CFR 178.65- 11(a). Under RSPA's regulation, you must conduct a pressure test on each cylinder before it is shipped, including holding a specified pressure for 30 seconds. Under the exemption, the hold time for testing each cylinder may be limited to "that which is adequate to show compliance." You asked whether compliance with the provisions of the exemption "satisfies the intent of paragraph S9.1, FMVSS 208."

The answer to your question is that an exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208. However, as discussed below, Standard No. 208 does not incorporate all of the provisions of 49 CFR 178.65-11(a). In particular, Standard No. 208 does not require you to test each cylinder but instead requires you to assure that each cylinder, if tested in accordance with 49 CFR 178.65-11(a), including the 30 second hold time, would meet the specified performance requirements.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Section 9.1 of Standard No. 208 states:

A pressure vessel that is continuously pressurized . . . shall not leak or evidence visible distortion when tested in accordance with ' 178.65-11(a) of this title and shall not fail in any of the ways enumerated in ' 178.65-11(b) of this title when hydrostatically tested to destruction.

You noted in your letter that 49 CFR 178.65-11(a) specifies, among other things, that "each cylinder must be tested at an internal pressure of at least the test pressure and must be held at that pressure for at least 30 seconds." Under RSPA's regulation, you must conduct the pressure test on each cylinder before it is shipped, including holding a specified pressure for 30 seconds. However, paragraph 7b(1) of the exemption RSPA granted you (DOT-E 11494) provides that "the hold time at test pressure . . . may be limited to that which is adequate to ensure compliance."

Your letter raises two issues. The first is whether NHTSA requires each cylinder to be tested. The second is whether a 30 second hold time is required to satisfy Standard 208.

Testing.

Unlike RSPA=s requirements, NHTSA does not require each cylinder to be tested. The RSPA requirement to test each cylinder before it is shipped is a quality control provision. When NHTSA added the requirements for pressure vessels to Standard No. 208 (see May 6, 1972 final rule (37 FR 9222), copy enclosed), the agency adopted some, but not all of RSPA's Specification 39 (49 CFR 178.65). Notably, the "quality control" requirements of RSPA were not adopted. NHTSA stated:

A continuously pressurized vessel is required to conform to the requirements of Specification 39 concerning type, size, service pressure, and test pressure of vessels (paragraph 2 of the specification); seams (6(b)); wall thickness (7); openings and attachments (9 (a) and (b)); safety devices (10); pressure tests (11); and flattening tests (12). The reference to the latter two paragraphs are drafted to make it clear that the quality control aspects of those paragraphs are not included in the standard. The remaining portions of Specification 39 . . . are not incorporated. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, while Standard No. 208 incorporated the pressure test performance requirements of that paragraph, it did not adopt the quality control provisions. There is no requirement in the standard that each cylinder must be pressure tested. However, as explained more below, you are responsible for assuring the compliance of each cylinder with the specified performance requirements.

30-Second Hold Time.

Although the RSPA exemption permits you to test your cylinders for less than 30 seconds, an exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208. Under Standard No. 208, you are responsible for assuring that each cylinder, if tested in accordance with 49 CFR 178.65-11(a), including the 30 second specification, would not leak or evidence visible distortion. However, nothing in Standard No. 208 requires you to test each cylinder or to test for a 30 second minimum. You may be able to provide such assurance by a variety of means, included, but not limited to, engineering analyses, computer simulations, testing each cylinder, sample testing, or a combination of these activities.

While your exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208, you may be able to use the testing you conduct to meet RSPA responsibilities to also meet your Standard No. 208 responsibility. That is, you may be able to base your certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 on the data you already have.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:208 d:5/9/96

ID: 7450

Mr. L.J. Sharman
314 Lakeside Drive South
Surfside Beach, SC 29575

Dear Mr. Sharman:

This responds to your letter requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding compliance testing results. Your question arises in the context of the testing procedures set forth in Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. (49 CFR 571.302).

As explained below, the agency makes available all of its compliance test results through its Technical Reference Division. However, the agency has no such requirements for manufacturers or other persons to keep records concerning any test results. Nevertheless, a manufacturer would be well advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with an applicable safety standard.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each of the agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions that this agency will use to assure whether the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested is in compliance with the safety standard. NHTSA follows the established test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. The results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public in the agency's Technical Reference Division.

However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results.

However, if the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in the manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish due care. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)).

I note that the agency has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle malfunctions. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, 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

Ref:VSA d:8/12/92

ID: nht92-4.39

DATE: August 12, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: L.J. Sharman

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/13/92 from L.J. Sharman to NHTSA (OCC 7450)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting information about whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued any regulations addressing the retention of records regarding compliance testing results. Your question arises in the context of the testing procedures set forth in Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. (49 CFR S571.302).

As explained below, the agency makes available all of its compliance test results through its Technical Reference Division. However, the agency has no such requirements for manufacturers or other persons to keep records concerning any test results. Nevertheless, a manufacturer would be well advised to retain such records in case its motor vehicle or item of equipment did not comply with an applicable safety standard.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., the "Safety Act") gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Each of the agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions that this agency will use to assure whether the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested is in compliance with the safety standard. NHTSA follows the established test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. The results of NHTSA's compliance tests are always recorded and made available to the public in the agency's Technical Reference Division.

However, the Safety Act does not require a manufacturer to test its products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the products at all. A manufacturer may choose any means of certifying that its products comply with the requirements of the safety standards. If the manufacturer chooses to conduct testing, there is no requirement that the manufacturer retain those results.

However, if the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists with a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If, in fact, there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties under the Safety Act unless it can establish that it exercised "due care" in the design and manufacture of the product and in the checks (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analyses, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards. Given the potential for civil penalties, it is in the manufacturer's best interests to retain its testing records in case it must establish due care. (See 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)).

I note that the agency has issued a regulation addressing recordkeeping, 49 CFR Part 576, Record Retention, which establishes requirements for the retention by motor vehicle manufacturers of complaints, reports, and other records concerning motor vehicle malfunctions. However, nothing in this provision requires retention of information generated during compliance testing.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's regulations, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 17360.ztv

S. L. Law, Optical Design Manager
Magneti Marelli UK Ltd.
Lighting Division
Walkmill Lane, Cannock
Staffordshire WE11 3LP
England

Dear Mr. Law:

This is in reply to your fax of February 13, 1998, with reference to a proposed design for a tamperproof vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD).

Paragraph S7.8.5.2(c) requires, in pertinent part, that "each headlamp equipped with a VHAD that is manufactured for use on motor vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1998, shall be manufactured with its calibration permanently fixed by its manufacturer." General Motors seeks assurance from Magneti Marelli, therefore, that the VHAD on a headlamp it intends buying from the company is sufficiently tamperproof so that the calibration can be regarded as permanently fixed.

Your intent is to prevent the removal of the VHAD covering window, thus denying access to the adjustment screw. In the current design, the covering is applied with a clockwise rotation and is removable by a counterclockwise motion. In the proposed design, once the covering is applied with a clockwise rotation, it cannot be removed by a counterclockwise motion.

We have concluded that this design makes the VHAD sufficiently tamperproof that the calibration of the VHAD will comply with the requirement of S7.8.5.2(c) that it be permanently fixed.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:108
d.5/22/98

ID: nht73-3.11

DATE: 01/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 15, 1972, requesting an opinion as to whether certain identification marks and certification statements Eastman Chemical plans to use in marketing Uvex plastic sheet will conform to Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", as amended November 11, 1972 (37 F.R. 24035), and to section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which requires the certification of motor vehicles and equipment as conforming to applicable standards. You submit two sample markings: one for use by Eastman when it sells that material to further manufacturers, whom you refer to as "fabricators", and one for use by persons other than Eastman. Similarly, you submit two certification statements, one for use by Eastman, and the other for use by its customers.

Based upon our previous dealings with Eastman regarding this product, it does not seem to us that a person other than Eastman Chemical can be considered the "fabricator" of Uvex sheet. The term "fabricate", which is used along with "laminate and temper" to distinguish prime glazing material manufacturers from other manufacturers, is used in the standard in its ordinary dictionary meaning, which we consider to be "manufactures" or "creates". Accordingly, we have assumed Eastman to be the prime manufacturer of the material in answering the questions you raise.

The markings which you indicate will be used by Eastman will conform to the requirements of paragraph S6.1 of Standard No. 205 (assuming the letters and numbers conform to the size requirements of Section 6 of ANS Z26). If the material is to be used as a component of a specific motor vehicle or camper Eastman would be required, after April 1, 1973, to conform to paragraph S6.2 as well, by including in the mark Eastman's assigned DOT code number.

The label stamp you will supply to your customers will conform to the requirements of S6.4.

With respect to the statements you plan to use for certification purposes, we believe them to be unnecessarily ambiguous, and therefore to be of doubtful legal effect in meeting the certification requirement. It is the responsibility of Eastman to certify the conformity of the product to the standard. The basis for that certification is the manufacturer's entire process from design to final production. Tests which show that the material conforms are only one factor in the situation, and reference to them in the certification statement is inappropriate. We feel similarly with respect to your statement that you certify the material as meeting "high manufacturing standards". We recommend you certify with the statement, "This material conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." In cases where the material will be altered by other manufacturers, they can, where possible, allow this label to remain in place, or affix a new label with the same statement.

ID: 77-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peter Cooper

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 1, 1977, question whether your client, a retail tire dealer, would be in violation of the regulations of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) if he were to sell tires which do not contain an identification number as required by the NHTSA.

Paragraphs S4.3.1 and S4.3.2 of 49 CFR 571.109, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires, requires passenger car tires to be labelled in accordance with Part 574. The absence of an identification number means that the tire is not in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 109. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) provides in part that no person shall sell any item of motor vehicle equipment that is not in conformity with applicable standards. Since your client would be selling nonconforming tires, he would be in violation of our Act and, therefore, subject to the penalties imposed thereunder. Section 109(a) of the Act establishes a penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the Act, not to exceed $ 800,000 for any related series of violations.

SINCERELY,

PETER COOPER ATTORNEY AT LAW

March 1, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In connection with an inquiry from a client of mine, I have studied the 1975 regulation with reference to the requirement that all tires sold must have identification numbers thereon. My client is a retail tire dealer and tells me he has an opportunity to buy a lot of tires on which the identification numbers have been removed. I am told that these tires were bought for export but by reason of some restriction, the owner of said tires is unable to export them and is trying to sell them to my client.

The regulation seems to impose a penalty on manufacturers, or possibly others who sell tires on which the numbers have been removed.

It is my desire to inform my client that the regulations must be complied with but I am not clear as to whether the penalty imposed by the regulation would apply to a retail dealer.

I would appreciate it if you would advise me whether or not my client would be in violation of the regulation and subject to penalties if he buys the tires and then sells them at retail to his customers.

Peter Cooper