ID: nht89-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: KEITH E. MADDEN -- RESEARCH ASSOCIATE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY OF IOWA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/03/89 FROM KENNETH E. MADDEN TO ERIKA Z. JONES NHTSA, OCC 3106; LETTER DATED 12/04/87 FROM PAUL L. PETERSCHMIDT TO GEORGE PARKER

TEXT: Dear Mr. Madden:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, 1989, with respect to importation of ethanol-fueled trucks from Brazil. You have requested assurance that "there are no legal or administrative roadblocks to this importation."

I am happy to provide the assurance you seek. Your letter indicates that you are well versed in our importation procedures, and that you have discussed this matter with Messrs. VanOrden and Vinson of this agency. The University of Iowa is permitted to import trucks that do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for purposes of test and experimentation, pursuant to Title 19, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(i)(vii). When the trucks reach the United States, th e importer of record makes the appropriate declaration (in this instance, Box 7 of the HS-7 Form). If vehicles imported for testing and experimenting will be used on the public roads, the importer must attach a sheet to the Form stating the purpose for which the vehicles are imported, the estimated amount of time that the vehicles will be used on the public road, and whether after testing they will be exported, abandoned to the United States, or brought into compliance. Permission for the noncomplying vehicles to remain in the United States for the purposes of testing and experimenting is renewable annually for a maximum total of three years. Thus, for example, at the end of the first year, if the importer requires more time for on-road testing, it m ust write this Department of that need. Generally, permission is granted for an additional year. If a third year is needed for on-road testing, the importer must again request permission of this agency.

We see no legal or administrative impediments to this importation. Further, under these circumstances, the Brazilian manufacturer of these trucks has no responsibilities to the Department of Transportation under any of its laws or regulations.

Sincerely,

ID: 1740y

Mr. Keith E. Madden
Research Associate
College of Engineering
Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering
125B Chemistry Building
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242

Dear Mr. Madden:

This is in reply to your letter of February 3, l989, with respect to importation of ethanol-fueled trucks from Brazil. You have requested assurance that "there are no legal or administrative roadblocks to this importation."

I am happy to provide the assurance you seek. Your letter indicates that you are well versed in our importation procedures, and that you have discussed this matter with Messrs. VanOrden and Vinson of this agency. The University of Iowa is permitted to import trucks that do not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards for purposes of test and experimentation, pursuant to Title l9, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 12.80(b)(i)(vii). When the trucks reach the United States, the importer of record makes the appropriate declaration (in this instance, Box 7 of the HS-7 Form). If vehicles imported for testing and experimenting will be used on the public roads, the importer must attach a sheet to the Form stating the purpose for which the vehicles are imported, the estimated amount of time that the vehicles will be used on the public road, and whether after testing they will be exported, abandoned to the United States, or brought into compliance. Permission for the noncomplying vehicles to remain in the United States for the purposes of testing and experimenting is renewable annually for a maximum total of three years. Thus, for example, at the end of the first year, if the importer requires more time for on-road testing, it must write this Department of that need. Generally, permission is granted for an additional year. If a third year is needed for on-road testing, the importer must again request permission of this agency.

We see no legal or administrative impediments to this importation. Further, under these circumstances, the Brazilian manufacturer of these trucks has no responsibilities to the Department of Transportation under any of its laws or regulations.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:MIS d:3/24/89

ID: nht75-5.11

DATE: 07/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: FMC Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to FMC Corporation's June 23, 1975 request for clarification of a recent NHTSA proposal (40 FR 24915, June 11, 1975) to amend Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, to establish an exemption criterion for a vehicle that has an "unloaded vehicle weight that is not less than 95 percent of the vehicle GVWR [gross vehicle weight rating]". You ask whether a vehicle's "unloaded weight" means the GVWR, as established by adding the gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) of all axles, minus whatever portions of the vehicle are removed for highway travel.

The answer to your question is no. In light of the requirements for GVWR in Part 567.4 (Certification), unloaded vehicle weight will normally be the GVWR of a vehicle minus its rated cargo load and its assigned occupant weight (at least 150 lbs). The rated cargo load would not include the weight of portions of a vehicle which are essential to its specialized function but are removed in accordance with State regulation for transit purposes.

I would also note that the NHTSA definition of GVWR (49 CFR @ 571.3) does not require that the GVWR be the sum of the vehicle's GAWR's. Of course the GVWR must not exceed the sum of vehicle GAWR's.

With regard to your June 17, 1975, suggestion of a meeting with Mr. Larson, I would prefer first to have your view of these clarifications.

Yours Truly,

ATTACH.

June 23, 1975

Thomas Herlihy -- National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

This letter is a request for a legal interpretation of proposed revisions to 49CFR571.12153, Docket 75-16, Notice 01, Federal Register Vol. 40, No. 113 Wednesday, June 11, 1975.

My letter of June 16, 1975 to the Docket Section concerning the above is attached.

I would appreciate the interpretation as soon as possible to allow me time for an additional petition if it is required.

Very truly yours,

H. Ray Cozad -- Chief Engineer, FMC CORPORATION

ID: nht91-7.36

DATE: December 9, 1991

FROM: Michael A. Martin -- Program Manager, Bureau of Highway Safety, State House Station 42, Augusta, Maine

TO: Mary Versailles -- Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael A. Martin (A39; VSA 103(d); Std. 108; Std. 222); Also attached to letter from Erika Z. Jones to Martin V. Chauvin

TEXT:

In follow-up to our telephone conversation of November 20 concerning federal school bus safety standards and a state's ability to make improvements beyond those standards would you please provide a written response to the following.

First, what is the general rule to which states need to comply with regarding federal school bus safety standards? What bus safety modifications would not be restricted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)?

Would federal school bus safety standards restrict a state from requiring safety belts on school buses?

Could a school bus fleet modify the rear lighting configuration on their buses (8 light system) to reduce the potential for other vehicles rear-ending buses during poor visibility conditions e.g., fog? Please refer to the attached diagram. The proposed change is to replace the white 8 inch back-up lights with 8 inch red sealed beam warning lights similar to the two at the upper level of the rear end of the bus. These would flash in an alternating criss-cross fashion when the bus is stopped loading or discharging students. The small white lights at the lowest level of the rear end of the bus would each be replaced with white, universal backup lights angled to also direct their beams at 45 degree angles out from the rear of the bus. This would greatly improve the driver's ability to see when backing the bus in a direction both behind and to the side of the bus.

I would appreciate your interpretation of what safety modifications a state may propose that would definitely be preempted by federal school bus safety standards.

Thank you for your assistance.

Attachments

Drawing entitled Rear End of School Bus, Current System. Drawing entitled Rear End of School Bus, Proposed System. (Drawings omitted)

ID: nht90-1.89

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/90

FROM: BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES

TITLE: U.S. CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35, VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/9 0 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUIT S; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

TEXT: Four Tampa Bay shops sued for violating safety codes

-- In a move that could cripple Florida's booming auto-tint industry, the federal government has sued four Tampa Bay tint shops for violating national traffic safety codes.

But dealers say they are in compliance with Florida's own law on window tinting and vow to fight for more relaxed tinting standards.

The U.S. Justice Department, on behalf of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, filed four separate lawsuits Wednesday in federal court in Tampa.

Named as defendants are Seminole Solar Systems, Inc., 69 Ulmerton Road in Largo; Window Kote, 3801 16th St. N in St. Petersburg; Solar Graphics Inc. 3337 22nd Ave. S in St. Petersburg; and Allied Glass Tint Inc., 1404 N. Armenia in Tampa. Two Orlando -area tint shops also were sued in separate federal court actions in Orlando.

Each complaint charges the businesses with installing window film on cars that allows less than 70 percent of natural light to pass through. Each shop has tinted at least 800 cars since 1986, the suits claim, making each shop liable for $ 800,000 in fines, the maximum allowed under the relevant federal regulation.

Drivers of cars already tinted would not be affected by the lawsuit, but could still be ticketed by police enforcing Florida's statute on window tint.

Tim Hurd, a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration spokesman in Washington D.C., said an investigation begun in July 1987 found a large concentration of tint dealers operating in Central Florida.

The lawsuits are the first and only of their kind, Hurd said.

Auto tinting "presents a safety problem because it reduces the ability to see what's coming at the car," Hurd said. "We've also had complaints from state law enforcement officials."

Police have long disliked the practice of tinting car windows because it makes it difficult to see inside vehicles.

But the treatment remains extremely popular with drivers in Sun Belt states, who say the window film protects interiors, reduces heat and glare, and makes cars look better.

Phil Hoffman owns Window Kote in Largo and franchises three other shops under that name. His Largo shop tints about 4,000 cars a year. He said Wednesday that he was surprised by the lawsuits.

Drivers of cars already tinted would not be affected by the lawsuit, but could still be ticketed by police enforcing Florida's statute on window tint.

Hoffman said the four area shops named as defendants all voluntarily allowed federal transportation officials to inspect their records in 1988. He said they were told at the time that their installations violated the federal regulation, but that his own attorney said since Florida law allowed the darker tint, the practice was legal.

A 1984 Florida statute allows tinting that allows as little as 35 percent of natural light to enter front side windows, and that allows as little as 18 percent of outside light through back windows. No tinting is allowed on windshields.

ID: 8001

Mr. Guy Mozzicato
Meridian, Inc.
140 Rye Street
South Windsor, CT 06074

Dear Mr. Mozzicato:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on November 16, 1992.

You explained to Mr. Myers that your company, Meridian, Inc., exports used tires and casings from the United States to other countries. You stated that although your company endeavors to export only good quality tires, other used tire exporters are not so quality-oriented and export defective or otherwise unserviceable tires. You further stated that as a result of such unscrupulous practices, the country of Venezuela has asked you what the requirements are for importation of used tires into the United States.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S. Code, 1381 - 1431, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the Safety Act), provides at Section 1397(a)(1)(A): "No person shall . . . import into the United States, any . . . item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard . . . ." The effect of that language is to require that motor vehicle tires, whether new or used, manufactured on and after the effective date of applicable Federal safety standards must comply with those standards before they can be imported into the United States. Manufacturers must certify such compliance by molding the symbol "DOT" onto the tire sidewalls. Therefore, to be legally imported into the United States motor vehicle tires must either display the DOT symbol or be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before the effective date of the applicable safety standards.

The only exception to the above requirement is that used truck tires which have less than 2/32 inch of tread remaining and which are being imported for retreading prior to on-road use may be imported without displaying the DOT symbol. This exception is explained in a June 18, 1981 letter addressed to Mr. Roy Littlefield of NTDRA (copy enclosed).

The standards that apply to passenger car tires are Standard 109, New Pneumatic Tires, and Standard 110, Tire Selection and Rims, found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.109 and 571.110 respectively. The standards applicable to tires for vehicles other than passenger cars are Standard 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.119; and Standard 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, 49 CFR 571.110. Other regulatory requirements pertinent to tires are Standard 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires; Standard 129, New Non-Pneumatic Tires for Passenger Cars; 49 CFR Part 569, Regrooved Tires; 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping; and 49 CFR Part 575, Consumer Information Regulations. For your information, I am enclosing a fact sheet prepared by this agency entitled Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations which explains how and from where the full text of our safety standards and regulations may be obtained.

I hope the above information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding any of these matters, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-5830.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure

7NCC-20 WMyers:mar:12/2/92:OCC 8001 Ref: #109#110#119#120 U:\NCC20\INTERP\MIS\8001.WKM Coord: NEF; NRM Interps: 109; 119; Redbook (4)

ID: 0004

The Honorable John A. Boehner
Member, United States House of
Representatives
5617 Liberty Fairfield Road
Hamilton, Ohio 45011

Dear Congressman Boehner:

This responds to your letter of April 7, 1994, to the Department of Transportation (DOT) on behalf of your constituents, John Cail Sr. and James Lipps of Eaton.

Messrs. Cail and Lipps have requested your assistance in obtaining DOT "approval and color code designation" for their "Life Lites" system. This is a stop lamp system consisting of two 18-inch long 1/2-inch wide devices intended to be mounted on the front of a vehicle alongside the windshield pillars, to emit a light of either purple or coral. The system is activated with the rear stop lamps when the brakes are applied, and it is intended to warn observers to the front of a vehicle that the vehicle is braking. It "could be mounted to most existing vehicles and could be readily incorporated into new car designs."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)is the component of DOT that is responsible for motor vehicle safety under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act does not authorize NHTSA to "approve" or disapprove safety inventions such as Life Lites. We do advise, however, whether such inventions are permitted under the Act and applicable regulations such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The fact that a device may be permitted under NHTSA laws must not be interpreted as our approval or endorsement of it.

The standard that applies to motor vehicle lighting is Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Life Lites emitting either color may be installed as original equipment by the manufacturer, distributor, or dealer at the time a vehicle is sold to its first purchaser provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of any of the frontal lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 such as headlamps and turn signals. The materials you enclosed show a color closeup newspaper photo of a Life Lite

in operation; its relatively low output does not appear sufficient to impair headlamp effectiveness. There would be concern, however, if it were to distract attention from an operating turn signal and, in this sense, impair its effectiveness. However, the responsibility for determining whether supplemental original lighting equipment impairs the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment rests with the installer, and NHTSA will not question this determination unless it appears clearly erroneous.

Life Lites that are sold in the aftermarket and intended for vehicles in use, are prohibited by the Act if their installation by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business "knowingly renders inoperative, in whole or part" the required motor vehicle lighting equipment. Though the words are different between the Act and Standard No. 108, in this instance we would equate partial inoperability with impairment of effectiveness and the same considerations would apply.

However, the Act does not prohibit vehicle owners under any circumstances from installing Life Lites themselves if they are able to do so. But the legality of Life Lites of either color and under any scenario remains subject to the laws of any State in which the device is operated. We are unable to advise your constituents of the laws of the individual States, and suggest that they write for an opinion to the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Washington Office

re:108#VSA d:6/2/94

ID: nht93-7.47

DATE: November 3, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Phil Gramm -- United States Senate

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to Privacy Form dated 9/19/93 from Thomas J. Devon to Senator Phil Gram (OCC number illegible)

TEXT:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Devon of Longview, Texas. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) referred your inquiry to this office, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal safety standards for tires.

In his communication with you, Mr. Devon expressed concern about separated treads from retreaded large truck tires. He "referred to the deaths of two young women reportedly caused when they lost control of their vehicle after striking a separated tread in the road. Mr. Devon is concerned that retreaded tires do not meet the same standards as new tires and requested data on accidents caused by separated tire tread sections on the roadway.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA has issued various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to tires: FMVSS Nos. 109 and 110 for new pneumatic passenger car tires; FMVSS Nos. 119 and 120 for new pneumatic tires for other than passenger cars; and FMVSS No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires. There is currently no standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. This is because the agency is not aware of any data suggesting a safety need for such a standard.

With respect to tire tread separation, examination of actual tire scraps from the nation's highways have indicated that about 60 percent came from retreaded tires and 40 percent from original tires. Because of the many complaints about heavy truck tire tread scraps on and around the highways, the University of Michigan conducted a study in the mid-1980s' entitled "Large Truck Accidents Involving Tire Failure." That study concluded that most large truck tire failures are caused by vehicle overload and/or tire underinflation. Underinflation causes excessive flexing of the tire. The friction resulting from that flexing causes excessive heat buildup which can, in turn, result in tread separation or other tire failure. Indeed, the heat buildup has been known to be so extreme as to cause the tire to burst into flame.

The findings from the Michigan study led the FHWA to prohibit the operation of commercial motor vehicles with overloaded and underinflated tires, unless the vehicle is operated pursuant to a special permit issued by a state. That permit, however, requires a reduced speed to compensate for the increased tire loading. In addition, the vehicle and the tires must be maintained in a safe operating condition at all times. FHWA conducts

roadside inspection programs to ensure that such requirements are being met.

While scraps of tires on the roadway could pose a safety hazard to motorists, this agency has no real world crash data to indicate what percentage of motor vehicle crashes could be attributed to separated tire treads. Our crash data are limited to the general category of tire failure.

Please be assured that NHTSA and FHWA, as well as the tire industry itself, are engaged in ongoing efforts to alleviate this problem by appropriate publicity to large truck owners and operators regarding proper tire care and maintenance and by vigorous vehicle inspection programs.

I hope this information is helpful. If your constituent has any further questions, he may contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9199

The Honorable Phil Gramm
United States Senate
2323 Bryan Street, #1500
Dallas, TX 75201

Dear Senator Gramm:

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Devon of Longview, Texas. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) referred your inquiry to this office, since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers Federal safety standards for tires.

In his communication with you, Mr. Devon expressed concern about separated treads from retreaded large truck tires. He referred to the deaths of two young women reportedly caused when they lost control of their vehicle after striking a separated tread in the road. Mr. Devon is concerned that retreaded tires do not meet the same standards as new tires and requested data on accidents caused by separated tire tread sections on the roadway.

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act) authorizes NHTSA to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to that authority, NHTSA has issued various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) applicable to tires: FMVSS Nos. 109 and 110 for new pneumatic passenger car tires; FMVSS Nos. 119 and 120 for new pneumatic tires for other than passenger cars; and FMVSS No. 117 for retreaded passenger car tires. There is currently no standard applicable to retreaded tires for vehicles other than passenger cars. This is because the agency is not aware of any data suggesting a safety need for such a standard.

With respect to tire tread separation, examination of actual tire scraps from the nation's highways have indicated that about 60 percent came from retreaded tires and 40 percent from original tires. Because of the many complaints about heavy truck tire tread scraps on and around the highways, the University of Michigan conducted a study in the mid-1980s entitled "Large Truck Accidents Involving Tire Failure." That study concluded that most large truck tire failures are caused by vehicle overload and/or tire underinflation. Underinflation causes excessive flexing of the tire. The friction resulting from that flexing causes excessive heat buildup which can, in turn, result in tread separation or other tire failure. Indeed, the heat buildup has been known to be so extreme as to cause the tire to burst into flame.

The findings from the Michigan study led the FHWA to prohibit the operation of commercial motor vehicles with overloaded and underinflated tires, unless the vehicle is operated pursuant to a special permit issued by a state. That permit, however, requires a reduced speed to compensate for the increased tire loading. In addition, the vehicle and the tires must be maintained in a safe operating condition at all times. FHWA conducts roadside inspection programs to ensure that such requirements are being met.

While scraps of tires on the roadway could pose a safety hazard to motorists, this agency has no real world crash data to indicate what percentage of motor vehicle crashes could be attributed to separated tire treads. Our crash data are limited to the general category of tire failure.

Please be assured that NHTSA and FHWA, as well as the tire industry itself, are engaged in ongoing efforts to alleviate this problem by appropriate publicity to large truck owners and operators regarding proper tire care and maintenance and by vigorous vehicle inspection programs.

I hope this information is helpful. If your constituent has any further questions, he may contact Walter Myers of this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

ref:117 d:11/3/93

ID: SWI