ID: nht94-8.30

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: Martin M. Sackoff, Ph.D. -- Executive Director Of Laboratories, International Testing Laboratories

TO: Office of Chief Counsil -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/12/94 From John Womack To Martin Sackoff (A42; Std. 109)

TEXT: Gentlemen:

The subject of this request is in reference with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 - New Pneumatic Tires - Passenger Cars.

The specific question is with reference to S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength, which states "S4.2.2.4 Tire Strength. Each tire shall meet the requirements for minimum breaking energy specified in Table 1 when tested in accordance with S5.3".

I shall very much appreciate receiving a reply concerning the definition or interpretation of the term "breaking" of the tire. Does this mean a blowout of the tire, or simply the breaking of the tire caused by forcing the steel plunger into the tread?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-1.8

DATE: January 13, 1993

FROM: John B. White -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Michelin

TO: General Counsel -- NHTSA

COPYEE: P. Jones -- Michelin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-27-93 from John Womack to John B. White (A41; Std. 109; Std. 119)

TEXT: From time to time we receive requests from various customers or potential customers for copies of the tests that we performed to certify that our tires comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations. Implied in these requests is that NHTSA requires manufacturers to perform the tests contained in the various standards (FMVSS 109, 119 and Part 575) in order to comply with those standards. Furthermore, some of these requests, including one recently from the Department of Defense, have indicated that these test results, along with test tires, are submitted to NHTSA who then provides the certification.

We would appreciate it if you would clarify this situation.

Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

ID: 86-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: T. Chikada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. Chikada Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Department Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Chikada;

This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1986, asking for an opinion regarding a "decorative extra lighting device." It appears from the drawing that you enclosed that the device would be a part of a three-compartment housing incorporating also a rear turn signal lamp, and one that performs that tail and stop functions. It would be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. You have informed us that the lens color of the device would be red and its maximum luminous intensity lower than the minimum of the adjacent taillamp.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of lighting devices not required by the standard if such a device would impair the effectiveness of the equipment that is required. It is our impression that your device performs the function of a rear side marker lamp, required to be installed on all motor vehicles other than motorcycles. However, you have not told us any of the operational characteristics of the lamp, such as whether it would be steady burning in use and activated simultaneously with the headlamp and taillamp, or whether it would flash with the rear turn signal lamp. Nevertheless, it would appear to be acceptable as a supplemental taillamp or turn signal lamp, or as a side marker lamp, either with or without the decorative trim.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel February 5, 1986

Att.: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Re. : Installation of decorative extra lighting device to the vehicle, which is not specified in FMVSS No. 108

Dear Ms. Jones,

According to your letter of Nov. 4, 1985, we would ask you an advice for the following decorative extra lighting device.

This device will be mounted on the rear side of a motorcycle. We enclose a drawing which shows the size, shape and the proximity to a tail & stop lamp and a rear turn signal lamp. A lens color of this decorative extra lamp is red and its maximum luminous intensity is lower than the minimum of the tail lamp. There is a possibility of attaching an ornament on this accessory lamp.

We are looking forward to your advice.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

T. Chikada, Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept.

Enc. The details of the device

ID: nht71-3.17

DATE: 06/08/71

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1970, requesting an interpretation of the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 C.F.R. 574).

The proposals you described in your letter, paragraphs 1 and 2, will certainly meet the minimum requirements of the regulation and are perfectly acceptable. The regulation requires that a record be kept of the type of tire shipped on or in the vehicle. It does not require that the individual tire identification number be(Illegible Word) with the name and address of the purchaser.

If a vehicle dealer sells a vehicle equipped with tires which were not shipped on or in the vehicle, the vehicle dealer is considered a tire dealer under section 574.9(b) and as such, he is required to record the name and address of the first purchaser along with the tire identification number, and forward this information to the tire manufacturer. However, the tire manufacturer may designate someone else to maintain the required records by section 574.7. Therefore, it would be acceptable to have your vehicle dealers forward the required information to you instead of to the tire manufacturer, if the tire manufacturer designates you to maintain the records of tires installed on your vehicles.

If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to write.

ID: nht89-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/89 EST

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETT ER DATED 07/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO NORMAN D. SHUNWAY -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1989, forwarding Representative Morella's letter inquiring about the requirements of Federal law and regulations as they apply to the tinting of motor vehicle windows for medical reasons. We recently began a ru lemaking proceeding on the issue of tinting, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter.

The enclosures to Ms. Morella's letter described a case in which a person suffers from a skin disease called vitiligo and was advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays. The presumption is that this person needs more protection from the sun than that a fforded by vehicle windows that conform to the Federal standard.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a minimum 70 percent light transmissibility for glazing at levels "requisite for driving visibility," which includes all windows in passenger cars. When a requirement is estab lished in a Federal safety standard, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new vehicle that does not comply with that requirement. The Safety Act does not provide for individua l medical exemptions.

Similarly, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" an element of design required by a safety standard, such as minimum light transmissibility. This "render inoperative" prohibition applies to vehicles after sale to purchasers. Neither this "render inoperative" provision nor any other Federal requirement would prohibit an individual vehicle owner from modifying their own vehicles, even if the modifications cause the vehicle to no l onger comply with the Federal safety standards. Thus, an individual vehicle owner can make whatever modifications he or she likes, for medical or any other reasons, without violating Federal law. However, the individual States have the authority to regu late modifications that owners may make to their vehicles, and

2 many States have chosen to regulate window tinting. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of our July 8, 1988 letter to Representative Shumway and our November 1, 1988 letter to Representative Byron on this subject.

The minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205 represents a balancing of legitimate competing interests. On the one hand, safety considerations dictate that drivers must be able to see and analyze the traffic situation in which the v ehicle is being operated and react to that situation properly and promptly. To the extent that some of the available light is not transmitted through the vehicle glazing, the driver's ability to react to the traffic situation is potentially delayed. Th is is especially true under low light conditions, such as occur at night and on very overcast days.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons for allowing some tinting of vehicle windows. These include avoiding excessive heat for all vehicle occupants, reducing glare for the driver, preserving the vehicle interior, and helping persons with medic al conditions that are sensitive to the sun's rays.

NHTSA balanced these competing interests by establishing the current 70 percent minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205. However, the agency was asked in a petition for rulemaking to reexamine this balance and to permit darker tin ting of windows, by lowering the minimum light transmissibility requirement. We decided to reexamine whether the current minimum light transmibility requirement continues to represent the most appropriate and reasonable balance of the competing interest s.

Accordingly, on July 20, 1989, this agency published a request for comments on a comprehensive review of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirement for side and rear window glazing in passenger automobiles. One of the issues raised was the light transmissibility standard's effect on those who need more protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays. The comment period for this notice closed on September 18, 1989. The agency received nearly one hundred comments on this issue and is currently review ing those comments. We will notify you and Ms. Morella when we announce our decision.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this rulemaking action. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht93-6.23

DATE: August 30, 1993

FROM: Hal Sullivan

TO: David Elias -- Esq., Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Code Of Federal Regulations; 49 CFR, @ 567.5 And Any Relevant Related Codes.

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 6/8/94 From John Womack To Mr. And Mrs. Hal Sullivan (A42; Part 567; VSA 108(a)(1)(E)

TEXT: Dear David,

This letter will serve to confirm our request that you proceed to render your opinion on the definition the phrase "rated cargo load" contained in @ 567.5, entitled "GROSS. VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING".

As you will please recall, we purchased a 1992 Pace Arrow motor home from Fleetwood Motor Homes of California Inc., and when filled with fresh water, 6 gallons of water in the hot water heater, 3 gallons of water and chemical in each of the holding tanks and equipped with the identical factory optional HWH hydraulic jacks, the motor home is already over the maximum GVWR for the chassis. Our vehicle had a serious chassis failure at 4000 miles. The dealers routinely do everything but disclose the seriously inadequate carrying capacity associated with many of the motor homes manufactured by Fleetwood.

Please also direct me as to how 49 CFR is enforced as against a manufacturer who violates the code, i.e. are there fines, civil penalties etc?

Your prompt attention is most appreciated, as we are currently involved in a civil action against Fleetwood.

Sincerely,

ID: nht80-1.40

DATE: 03/24/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: O'Meara Ford Center

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 26, 1980, letter asking about the proper certification for a Ford Mustang that has been converted to a convertible. You ask what certification is required before you would be permitted to sell such a vehicle.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration requires all manufacturers of motor vehicles to certify that their vehicles comply with Federal safety standards prior to first sale. In the case of the vehicle that you mention, Ford Motor Company would have certified it when it was sold to the company that converted it to a convertible. Ford's certification label is located on the driver's door or pillar post.

The company that converted the vehicle, Tomaso of America, is responsible for putting its own label on the vehicle indicating that as altered the vehicle continues to comply with the applicable Federal safety standards. The requirements for alterers' labels are located in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 567.7. Tomaso's label should also be located on the vehicle in the same area as Ford's.

If both of the labels are on the vehicle, it is legal for you to sell it. If either of the labels is missing from the vehicle, then the vehicle is not correctly certified and may be in noncompliance with the safety standards.

ID: nht67-1.31

DATE: 09/21/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Busby and Rivkin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of July 13, 1967, you requested clarification of several issues relating to the location and size of turn signals as specified in the Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Initial Standard No. 108, entitled, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers, and Buses, 80 or More Inches Wide Overall," specifies that turn signal lamps shall conform to Class A of SAE Standard J588d. As stated in the enclosures to your letter, SAE Standard J588d specifies that the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal lamp shall be at least 4 inches from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam. This requirement of the SAE Standard is addressed to a single lamp with only one bulb. For a combination of lamps, such as that shown on the sketch enclosed with your letter, the intent of this requirement could be part if the optical center produced by the two bulbs is outside the 4-inch limit. The location of this optical center must be determined from laboratory test data, which was not presented in your letter.

Proposed Initial Standard No. 112, entitled, "Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment - Passenger Cars; Motorcycles; and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Trailers and Buses of Less than 80 Inches Wide Overall," would permit the use of Class A (SAE J588d) turn signal lamps until January 1, 1969. Under this provision, lamp No. 1 on your sketch would conform to the 4-inch spacing requirement. Combining lamp No. 1 and No. 2 to obtain a Class A area would again result in the situation previously described with respect to location of the optical center.

Since your letter makes frequent reference to "cars," we assume that you are primarily interested in the requirements of Standard No. 112. In this respect, we would caution you that the requirements specifies therein are presently only proposed requirements, and are subject to change prior to issuance of the final standard.

Thank you for your interest in the motor vehicle safety standards.

ID: 77-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Martin Director of Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Technical Center Warren, Michigan 48090

Dear Mr. Martin:

Please find enclosed a copy of a recent interpretation of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that may be relevant to your company's compliance efforts. The interpretation clarifies that service brake control modulation by the driver is permissible in evaluating compliance of a vehicle with S5.3.1 of the standard.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. W. E. Whitner

1-3-78 - LCL,RAR,DAM,RLL,DPD,GSB, RJD,MRB,CTT,JWS,RAW,WLW,JLM,WCC,DPR

DEC 20, 1977

Mr. Donald P. Weiher Chief Project Engineer - Safety AM General Corporation 32500 Van Born Road Wayne, Michigan 48184

Dear Mr. Weiher:

This responds to AM General's December 12, 1977, request to know whether modulation of the service brake control is permissible during stopping distance tests of an air-braked vehicle's compliance with S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Modulation would be employed to prevent lockup of wheels above 10 mph, as required by S5.3.1. The other questions in your letter will be answered separately.

Section 5.3.1 does not limit the type of brake application that may be employed. When a test procedure or condition is not specified, the manufacturer is free to conduct that aspect of the test in any reasonable manner.

In this case, the standard requires compliance in one out of six attempts, which is intended to increase the test driver's familiarity with the vehicle for test purposes. Driver modulation occurs in the real world and is, in the agency's view, a reasonable procedure by which to demonstrate compliance. The normal skill of a test driver is anticipated in compliance testing.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: nht76-5.24

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Steam Power Systems

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 22, 1976, requesting confirmation that your company's Paratransit Vehicle would be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

Your letter states that the Paratransit Vehicle is designed primarily to carry wheel-chair-confined passengers in a Dial-a-Ride or jitney type of service, and that the vehicle is of the forward control configuration, constructed with a custom chassis-body structure.

Based upon the facts presented in your letter, the description and specifications contained in the attached SAE design paper, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's previous interpretation of the classification, we would conclude that the Paratransit Vehicle does qualify as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Steam Power Systems

January 22, 1976

Office of Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Steam Power Systems, Inc. (SPS) is currently constructing a prototype Paratransit Vehicle (PTV) for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the D.O.T. The PTV is designed primarily to carry wheelchair confined passengers in a Dial-a-Ride or jitney type of service. The SPS prototype vehicle is of the forward control configuration and is constructed with a custom chassis-body structure. The vehicle design is discussed in some detail in the accompanying SAE paper.

SPS plans to certify that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS for a Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV). SPS has been in touch with Mr. Joseph O'Gorman of the Office of Standards Enforcement of NHTSA, and he feels our vehicle should be classified as a MPV, but he suggested that we request an interpretation from the Office of Chief Council that would classify the paratransit vehicle as a multipurpose vehicle.

SPS would appreciate it if you could review the vehicle design and intent and let us know whether the PTV is legally considered to be an MPV. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Phil Schneider -- PTV Project Supervisor

[Enclosure Omitted.]