ID: nht95-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede e Stabilimenti

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/22/95 LETTER FROM GIUSEPPE DI VITO TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10947)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Di Vito:

This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter t hat you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil t est). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification.

The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test appl ies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerel M. Sachs -- General Manager, Automotive Glass, Import Products Glass (IPG)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M, SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8-4-86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/14/90 LETTER FROM PAUL J ACKSON RICE TO NORMAND LAURENDEAU

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sachs:

This responds to your June 26, 1995, letter requesting a manufacturer's code mark for automotive glazing to comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated in your letter that y ou "intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas." Your letter also stated that you were negotiating for the tooling, machinery, and the code mark of Lin's Glass Company in T aiwan.

In a June 29, 1995, phone conversation between Paul Atelsek and a member of your staff, we learned that IPG only imports and distributes; but does not actually make, glazing. He was also told that Lin's has gone out of business, and that you had switche d to another supplier in Taiwan. In a July 13, 1995, phone conversation with Mr. Atelsek, you confirmed that IPG makes no glazing and that your new supplier has a code mark assigned by NHTSA, but said that you preferred to use a "fresh" number assigned to your company. You said that other companies that do not make glazing have code marks assigned to them, and named another company that you said imports "cheap" Chinese glass and applies its own manufacturer's code mark in order to disguise the origin of the glass from its buyers. In a July 13, 1995, letter in support of your request, you stated that IPG would be doing contract manufacturing with a supplier who is also supplying other customers, and that having your own number would help you monitor quality control and track your product in the marketplace. You believe that having your own number would also benefit NHTSA because the agency would have an easier time implementing a recall through IPG than through the Taiwanese supplier.

As Mr. Atelsek explained on the telephone, we cannot issue a number to your company because you are not a "prime glazing manufacturer." Standard 205, at S6.1, defines "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." As your company does none of these things, we cannot issue a code mark to IPG. To show you that this is a matter of longstanding legal interpretation, I have enclosed some interpretation letters we have written to others asking this question and related questions.

The glass should be marked with the number we have assigned to your supplier, the prime glazing manufacturer in Taiwan. The practice you mentioned of using code marks to disguise the identity of the manufacturer is directly contrary to our policy. This code mark is supposed to help NHTSA identify the prime manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Therefore, the code mark on a particular piece of glazing needs to refer to the company that actually , made the glazing, and code marks should never be applied to glazing made by anyone else.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-3.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JIM BURGESS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10931)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door rete ntion components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

Side doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not confo rm to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude whe elchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriat e.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 7, 1995

FROM: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TO: John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREY CLOCK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I need to obtain some clarification regarding the FMVSS302 Flammability specification. The specification states the following information:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an addition U-shaped frame, wider that the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10-mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

What material does the above mentioned statement pertain to. Currently, Moriden America is testing the following types of materials and need to determine if it is acceptable to use wires during the test:

* Flat Woven * Double Raschel * Tricot * Moquette

All of these materials also are laminated by two types of foam backings, CK scrim and 780 Dow Film. The material's thickness varies from 0mm to 8mm. I would appreciate if you could determine if the material should be tested with wires.

If you have any questions, please call.

ID: nht95-3.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Nancy Tavarez -- Bietrix Industries, Inc.

TO: John Walmack -- Chief Council ATSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO NANCY TAVAREZ (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walmack:

We are currently importing Phoenix Halogen Auto Bulbs H4 series, H3, H1 and 9000 series-HBI for the USA market. Mr. Taylor Benson recently informed us that these lights required DOT approval. We request you to please inform via fax the procedure to fol low in order to obtain DOT approval for our automotive lights.

We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht95-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Don Bearden -- Director, Governmental Affairs, Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM DON BEARDEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bearden:

This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1995, in which you state that Subaru of America, Inc. is considering the use of an optional rear bumper-mounted spare tire carrier on a future vehicle, and request this office to confirm your understanding th at the tire and carrier are to be removed before the vehicle is tested for compliance with the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581.

Your letter states that this equipment "would be mounted to the bumper beam and face bar." As your letter notes, bumper test conditions at 49 CFR 581.6(a)(5) specify that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are remo ved from the vehicle if they are optional equipment." In light of this requirement, if the spare tire carrier your letter describes is only to be offered as optional equipment, it would have to be removed before the vehicle is tested for compliance with the Bumper Standard.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5263.

ID: nht95-3.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Bryan Couch -- Systems Zone Leader, Motor Coach Industries

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/28/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO BRYAN COUCH (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Chief Council:

Please find enclosed preliminary drawing showing our proposed location for the front marker lamp and supplementary front marker lamp. We are requesting that you please critique this drawing and respond with your approval, or concerns.

The lamp identified as the front marker lamp will meet all FMVSS photometry requirements, and in our opinion is placed as far forward as practicable on this vehicle. The lamp identified as supplementary will not meet the 45 degrees rearward photometry r equirement due to the shape of the vehicle.

Please accept our advance thank you for your input and we look forward to receiving your response.

(Drawing Omitted.)

ID: nht95-3.81

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Eric D. Swanger, PE -- Engineering Manager, Specialty Manufacturing Co.

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 11/21/95 LETTER FROM Samuel J. Dubbin to Eric D. Swanger (A43; Std. 131)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

Research is performed at Specialty Manufacturing on a continual basis to investigate different means of improving upon the safety of school bus equipment. Recently, an inquiry has been made to Specialty concerning the usage of light-emitting diodes (LED 's) on stop arms. Apparently one state feels the usage of LED's to spell out the word "STOP" on the stop arm blade would increase the visibility of the sign in certain weather conditions.

After the engineering department of Specialty Manufacturing manufactured a prototype unit and tested the unit, several questions were raised which we feel need clarification from NHTSA in reference to FMVSS 131. The first being the basic viewing angles of LED's. While LED's have a quicker "on" and "off" time than incandescent bulbs, the overall viewing angle of an LED is extremely limited. Depending upon the placement of the LED's in the stop arm blade, the word "STOP" can vary from being noticeable to being a scattered pattern of lights. Exact placement of the LED's will depend upon the consistency of the manufacturing process. With incandescent lights, the light is very noticeable from all angles and manufacturing consistencies are not at all a concern.

The second issue is the legibility of the LED "STOP" at any given distance. Opinions of many casual onlookers asked to critique the LED sign when lit, seem to indicate that the letters are not large enough nor spaced far enough apart to be discernible at larger distances. Since the size of the letters is clearly defined by FMVSS 131, it appears that standard may have to be revised in order to ensure that "STOP" is legible at greater distances.

P2

The third issue is that of safety equipment consistency. Currently, all stop arms must have the word "STOP" displayed on the stop sign itself. The red lights are optional. The addition of another optional method of lighting may lead to confusion and s ubsequent passing violations due to visiting drivers being unfamiliar with state or county practices of school bus identification.

The development of an LED stop arm appears to our company to be quite expensive at the out set, and we are definitely concerned with the viewing angle, legibility from certain distances, and that consistences provided by FMVSS 131 could be in jeopardy.

I'm asking if you would please give us your interpretation of FMVSS 131 and the use of LED lights outlining the word "STOP." Specialty Manufacturing would be available to help in any standard research, manufacturer input, etc., as we have done in the pas t.

If I may be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 1-800-951-7867.

ID: nht95-3.82

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Randall Townley -- Statewide Coordinator, The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service

TO: Office of Chief Council -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 11/9/95 letter from Samuel J. Dubbin to Randall Townley (A44; Std. 207; Std. 222)

TEXT: I have had a question brought to my attention in reference to bench seats being installed in a van side-facing. I am aware some vehicles such as ambulances and pickup trucks are still being manufactured with bench mounted seats. I realize you have no d ata which would support side-mounted seats as being unsafe to the passengers in a vehicle.

Please give me your written opinion in reference to the above. Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht95-3.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by Stephen P. Wood

TO: D. L. O'Connor -- Manager, Government & Customer Compliance, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 7/13/95 LETTER FROM D. L. O'CONNOR TO WALTER K. MYERS (OCC 11043)

TEXT: Dear Mr. O'Connor:

This responds to your telephone conversation with Walter Myers of my staff on July 12, 1995, followed up by your letter of July 13, 1995.

You stated that Goodyear is encountering difficulties in exporting tires to Colombia, South America, in that Colombia wants verification that Goodyear complies with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) when placing the DOT symbol on tires. You believe that Colombia will permit importation of Goodyear tires if NHTSA recognizes that Goodyear is a U.S. tire manufacturer in good standing and that Goodyear's placing the DOT symbol on its tires is accepted as valid certification of compliance b y the U.S. government.

As Mr. Myers stated in your telephone conversation, other U.S. tire manufacturers and exporters have had similar difficulties with Central and South American countries. All those countries regard the FMVSSs as acceptable assurances of tire safety, but t hey do not seem to understand or are skeptical of our system of manufacturer self-certification. They want assurances from a responsible U.S. government agency that manufacturer self-certifications are accepted as valid by the U.S. government.

Enclosed is a statement similar to those that we have provided other manufacturers and exporters. Since the Federal government cannot and does not approve, certify or endorse vehicles and equipment, this statement is as far as we can go in getting the F ederal government involved in what by law is essentially a manufacturer responsibility.

I hope the enclosed statement will be helpful to you. Should you have further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Enclosure

8/9/95

To Whom It May Concern:

Subject: Tires Manufactured by Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

United States law requires tire manufacturers themselves to certify that the tires they manufacture for sale in the United States comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. There is no provision in U.S. law for approval or certif ication by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency responsible for implementing the Federal law. NHTSA enforces the standards by randomly selecting and testing approximately 100 passenger car tires and 70 other than passenger car tires per year to ensure the validity of the tire companies' self-certification programs.

NHTSA states that all motor vehicle tires of any type or size manufactured by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and bearing the symbol "DOT" are recognized by the United States as having been produced and certified in conformity with all applicable Federa l motor vehicle safety standards of the United States.

Any questions or requests for additional information regarding this matter may be directed to Walter Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA (Signed by S. Wood)