ID: nht94-4.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 21, 1994

FROM: Scott E. Peters -- Director, Regulations & Compliance, U.S. Electricar

TO: Phil Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Interpretation Regarding Tire Loads for Electric Vehicles

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/13/95 LETTER FROM PHIL RECHT TO SCOTT E. PETERS (STD. 110)

TEXT: U.S. Electricar is a California corporation which manufactures electric vehicles, including the Electricar Pickup (converted Chevrolet S-10) and the Electricar Sedan (converted GEO Prizm). The Electricar Pickup is fully FMVSS certified while the Electri car Sedan is currently built under NHTSA temporary FMVSS exemption 92-3 for low-emission vehicles. We are aggressively pursuing development of the Sedan and expect to achieve full FMVSS certification within several months.

As you are aware, production electric vehicle development is fairly recent and most of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards were not written with electric vehicles in mind. We occassionally come across a Safety Standard provision which does not se em applicable to electric vehicles because of their special operating characteristics and limitations compared to traditional internal combustion powered vehicles. Section 4.4.2 of Standard No. 110 is such an example, and we believe this section is not relevant to our particular electric passenger car (the Electricar Sedan), with a speed and speed/endurance limitation substantially below almost any internal combustion powered passenger car.

The purpose of Standard No. 110 is to ensure proper tire selection in order to prevent tire overloading, and thus prevent tire failure. Section 4.2.1 requires that vehicle maximum load on each tire shall not be greater than the maximum tire load rating as specified in one of the tire industry publications listed in Standard No. 109. This section alone prevents tire overloading as long as high speed operation is not a factor.

Section 4.2.2 of Standard No. 110 states that the normal load on the tire shall not exceed the test load used in the high speed performance test specified in S5.5 of Standard No. 109. The test load is 88 percent of the tire's maximum load rating. As sp ecified in S5.5.4 of Standard No. 109, tires at this test load must operate at speeds of 75 mph for 30 minutes, 80 mph for 30 minutes and 85 mph for 30 minutes. It is our understanding that the purpose of Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 is to ensure against ti re failure due to prolonged operation at speeds in the range of 75 mph or higher.

It is our interpretation that Standard No. 110, S4.4.2 is not intended to apply to the Electricar Sedan and other electric passenger cars in which it is physically impossible to operate at high speeds for an extended duration. The Electricar Sedan is ba rely capable of reaching a speed of 75 mph, and could not maintain this speed for more than a few minutes due to the extremely high power requirements and limited energy stored on-board in the vehicle's batteries.

Electric vehicles are intended for use in urban areas with air quality problems and are not suitable for operation at prolonged freeway speeds because of their range limitations. To maximize range and reliability in the Electricar Sedan, the top speed i s limited by software in the vehicle's electronic power control unit. The drag limited speed (non-software governed) is also below most of the "high speed" figures cited in Standard 109, S5.5.4.

Optimizing tire size is an ongoing challenge in electric vehicle development. Because of the weight added in the electric conversion process, original tires must generally be replaced with larger tires which have a higher load capacity. Larger tires on c onverted electric vehicles have the disadvantages of increased rolling resistance and reduced tire clearance and turning radius compared to the original vehicle. Increased rolling resistance lowers the vehicle operating range, a factor which is critical in the acceptance of electric vehicles by both fleet users and the general public. Section 4.2.2 of Standard 110 is based on the load-carrying capacity of tires at high speeds and would require the use of tires which are larger than those needed for co mpliance with S4.2.1 and larger than we believe are required for the safe operation of an electric passenger car with limited speed and speed/endurance capability.

Would you please review Standard 110, S4.2.2 in light of the performance limitations of our electric passenger car and provide us with your interpretation as to the applicability of this section to the Electricar Sedan described above.

Please contact me if I can provide additional information for your consideration of our request.

ID: nht93-1.37

DATE: February 17, 1993

FROM: James L. Vasko

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-23-93 from John Womack to James L. Vasko (A40; Std. 108); Also attached to letter dated 11-1-89 from Stephen P. Wood to John K. Moody

TEXT: Thank you for responding so quickly to my letter regarding my "Front Brake Light System". I will try to answer your questions as complete as possible. Please note any other questions or comments you may have as you continue through this letter and I will be happy to answer them in our next correspondence.

The answers to your questions are as follows. Your assumption is correct that my Front Brake Light System has no effect on the hazard warning system. The Front and Back hazard lights will remain the same as they are now.

The way the Front Brake Light System is accomplished without the necessity and expense of adding new complicated apparatus is by installing two wires and four clips. The wires would connect the master cylinder brake light switch to the front turn signals to act in unison with the back turn signals so they will act as brake lights as well as turn signals. The brake light switch and the turn signals switch are located under the dash on all vehicles. There would be no cost to manufacturers when new cars are built. Retrofiting existing vehicles would be a simple and in expensive matter and little cost to the consumer. Retrofiting could be done by any auto mechanic or smog station in less than 30 minutes. This Front Brake Light System will save more lives and prevent more accidents than the existing rear Brake Lights do today.

This Front Brake Light System will definitely enhance safety. The following are everyday scenarios:

1) Making a left turn in front of on-coming traffic will be much safer because you will be able to identify then on-coming vehicles will be in braking mode.

2) Pulling out into traffic will be safer as you can tell when a vehicle is slowing down, yielding for you.

3) Pulling out into an intersection with a green light, you could look left and right and make sure all vehicles have there front brake lights on showing that they are stopping.

4) Driver of a vehicle can glance into rear view mirror to see if vehicles are braking.

5) Pedestrians could be sure that vehicles are braking before stepping out into traffic, guessing should not be part of surviving.

6) I have operated emergency vehicles for the last 23 years as a Fremont Firefighter, all emergency vehicles are at grave risk with each and every call

they go out on. As the emergency vehicles approach intersections they have to look and guess if the vehicles are braking for there is no front brake indicators on vehicles forcing emergency vehicles to come to a complete stop at all intersections. Every city in the nation can show fatality accidents occur because we do not have front-end information.

7) Vehicles often have there turn signals on and fail to turn which causes many many accidents, as people think they are going to turn and pull out in front of a vehicle and they get hit. With the brake light system there, the Driver pulling out into traffic, would see the turn signal and the brake light showing that the vehicle was braking and turning.

8 ) The car in the lane next to you pulls ahead of you and signals to pull into your lane, you touch your brake peddle which signals to car in front of you that you are yielding for him to pull into your lane in front of you.

All drivers would learn quickly to key in on front brake lights making all phases of driving much safer and predictable. These scenarios go on and on, no one should ever have to say "I thought they were slowing down" or "I thought they saw me". Most accidents that occur are from lack of front-end information.

I'd be most interested to receive your interpretation of the relationship of my invention to the statutes and regulations that your agency administers. My FAX# is 1-510-792-6627, if wish to FAX a letter please feel free to do so.

It is for the benefit of all Americans that this new system be tested and placed in service as soon as possible because many lives are being lost or demaged daily because of lack of vehicle front-end information.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: 7782

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S House of Representatives
Room 2125, Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6115

Dear Chairman Dingell:

Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter.

The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalities is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses.

In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well- padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of "compartmentalization" has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were "attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome."

In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that "the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries." The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, "a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones." A summary of the NAS report is enclosed.

In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements.

While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, "states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly."

In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Marion C. Blakey Enclosure

cc: Mr. Aaron Gordon

ref:222 d:11/9/92

ID: nht92-2.41

DATE: 11/09/92

FROM: MARION C. BLAKEY ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TO: HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COPYEE: MR. AARON GORDON

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-17-92 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL TO MARION C. BLAKEY

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 1992, enclosing correspondence from Mr. Aaron Gordon concerning seat belts on school buses. You requested comments on Mr. Gordon's letter and on H.R. 896, a bill referred to in Mr. Gordon's letter.

The issue of safety belts on school buses is an important topic which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has thoroughly studied for many years. School bus transportation has been and continues to be one of the safest forms of transportation in America. Every year, approximately 370,000 public school buses travel approximately 3.5 billion miles to transport 22 million children to and from school and school-related activities. Since NHTSA began tracking traffic fatalities in 1975, an average of 16 school bus occupants per year have sustained fatal injuries. While each of these fatalities is tragic, the number of school bus occupant fatalitie is small compared to the number of occupant fatalities to children in other types of vehicles. For example, in 1989 there were 5,287 deaths among children aged five to 18 in vehicles other than school buses.

In 1977, NHTSA issued Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which established minimum crash protection levels for occupants of all school buses. For large school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) above 10,000 pounds, the standard requires occupant protection through a concept called "compartmentalization" -- strong, well-padded, well-anchored, high-backed, evenly spaced seats. The effectiveness of "compartmentalization" has been confirmed by independent studies by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Under the current requirements of Standard No. 222, small school buses, those with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, must provide "compartmentalization" and be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated passenger seating positions. The agency believes that safety belts are necessary in addition to "compartmentalization" in small school buses because of their smaller size and weight, which are closer to that of passenger cars and light trucks.

In 1987, the NTSB completed a study of the crashworthiness of large school buses, and concluded that most school bus occupant fatalities and serious injuries were "attributable to the occupants' seating position being in direct line with the crash forces. It is unlikely that the availability of any type of restraint would have improved their injury outcome."

In 1989, NAS completed a study of means to improve school bus safety and concluded that "the overall potential benefits of requiring seat belts on large school buses are insufficient to justify a Federal requirement for mandatory installation. The funds used to purchase and maintain seat belts might better be spent on other school bus safety programs and devices that could save more lives and reduce more injuries." The NAS pointed out that since children are at greater risk of being killed in school bus loading zones (i.e., boarding and leaving the bus) than on board school buses, "a larger share of the school bus safety effort should be directed to improving the safety of bus loading zones." A summary of the NAS report is enclosed.

In response to the recommendations from the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several rulemaking actions, such as improvements to school bus visibility by the driver and requiring stop signal arms on school buses, designed to improve the safety of students in school bus loading zones. Besides the actions taken in response to the NAS study, NHTSA has initiated several other rulemaking activities to improve further the safety of school buses, e.g., increasing the number of emergency exits, establishing wheelchair securement/occupant restraint requirements, and improving the body joint strength requirements.

While there are no Federal requirements for safety belts on large school buses, states are free to install them if they feel it is in the best interest in their state. However, as noted in the NAS report, if the safety belts are to be beneficial, "states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly."

In summary, the safety record of school buses is outstanding. As such, there is no compelling evidence to suggest that safety belts would provide even higher levels of occupant crash protection. Also, the agency agrees with the conclusion from the NAS report, that there is insufficient reason for a Federal mandate for safety belts on large school buses.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ATTACHMENT TRB REPORT SUMMARY, DATED MAY, 1989, ENTITLED SPECIAL REPORT 222-IMPROVING SCHOOL BUS SAFETY. (TEST OMITED)

ID: nht90-1.93

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/90

FROM: STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS

TITLE: LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS THE LAWSUITS CHARGE THE COMPANIES WITH VIOLATING FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS INSTALLING WINDOW TINTING FILM THAT IS TOO DARK AND UNSAFE FOR MOTORISTS

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 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; 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: The owner of a local automobile window tinting business says a federal lawsuit is not going to stop him from serving his customers.

"It's business as usual," David Spearin said Thursday. "It's steady as she goes."

ShakeSpearin's Inc. of Holly Hill was one of six Central Florida businesses named in civil complaints filed Wednesday by U.S. Attorney Robert W. Genzman of Tampa on behalf of the U.S. Justice Department.

The lawsuits charge the companies with violating federal safety standards by installing window tinting film that is too dark and unsafe for motorists.

Federal regulations require automobile glass that allows at least 70 percent light through its surface. The complaints seek to stop the businesses from violating the regulation [Illegible Word] impose civil [Illegible Word] for the violations.

Spearin and owners of several [Illegible Word] cal window-tinging operations [Illegible Word] follow state standards, which [Illegible Word] stringent, and Spearin said he was unaware of the tougher federal rules. State law permits tinting that allow s only 35 percent of the light to pass through windshield and front-seat windows, and 20 percent through rear and back-seat windows.

"We've always complied with Florida statutes and will continue to do so," Spearin said.

Officials with the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration in Washington, which oversees federal highway safety rules, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

Owners of other local companies in the automobile detailing business not named in the lawsuits said they wore nontheless concerned.

"The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration sent us some form a few years back pertaining to the light transmission qualities of the tinting, but that was the last I heard about it until now," said Ray Gordon, owner of Auto Appearance Cent er in South Daytona.

"Tinting that lets 70 percent of the light in is basically what cars come with," he said. "It's just ridiculous why they're doing something like this."

Gordon said he would start abiding by the federal standard, at least until the issue is resolved.

"It's going to wind up scaring customers away right at the peak of the season," he said. "But a law is a law so I'll follow it."

Lance Puckett, owner of Stardrive Detailing and Tinting of Holly Hill, said he got started in the tinting business only recently.

"I've heard the federal law was [Illegible Word] but nobody told me what it was, [Illegible Word] ways followed the state law," he don't do big volume on window but maybe it's time to start [Illegible Word] gurt."

Solar-X of Daytona was the [Illegible Word] in Volusia County to offer tinting, according to owner Brian [Illegible Word]

"My family got into this businesses years ago and there's always [Illegible Word] continuity between federal law [Illegible Word] law," he said. "Instead of wasting payers' money trying to prosecute people, the federal government [Illegible Word] get with the states and draft a [Illegible Word] law."

Martin Energy Products of Fort dale, makers of tinting film, are Congress to make the federal [Illegible Word] percent.

Smith said he's lost business by to install film darker than allow state law.

"I turn people away almost [Illegible Word] said. "I don't do those gangster [Illegible Word] know Dave (Spearin) doesn't either of the smaller shops, for an [Illegible Word] they'll paint your windows [Illegible Word] want. But I see the Florida la w very sufficient and it's going to [Illegible Word] as usual for me."

[POOR COPY]

ID: warner.ztv

Mr. Robert J. Warner
Member of Assembly
124th District
State of New York
State Office Building, Floor #17
44 Hawley Street
Binghamton, NY 13901-4416

Dear Assemblyman Warner:

Your letter of August 16, 1996, to the Office of Public & Consumer Affairs of this agency has been forwarded to the Office of Chief Counsel for reply. We are pleased to assist you in your development of a proposal for economical, energy-efficient alternative vehicles.

You mention that an important issue is "whether all four-wheeled vehicles manufactured in this country (excluding trucks, etc.) must comply with the Safety Standards for the 'Passenger Vehicle' category." As a general rule, the answer is yes; all four-wheeled passenger cars manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways must comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). However, through letters of interpretation, this Office presently excludes from compliance specific on-road vehicles whose configuration is "abnormal" and whose top speed does not exceed 20 mph. The agency has been asked to raise the speed to 25 mph but has taken no action yet on this request.

You also ask whether a vehicle called the Intruder "has been subjected to crash testing and emissions compliance? Is this vehicle actually legal for sale in the United States? Has it been approved by the DOT for sale in this country? If not, how can they claim it is U.S. Legal?"

Under the basic Federal vehicle safety regulatory statute, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 - Motor Vehicle Safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to approve a vehicle for sale. The legislation establishes a self-certification scheme under which a manufacturer permanently affixes a label to each motor vehicle upon its manufacture which certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSS. No submission of data to NHTSA or prior approval is required. A manufacturer must have a reasonable basis for its certification, but there is no legal requirement that it test according to the procedures set out in the FMVSS. For example, it is not necessary to crash test a vehicle in order to certify compliance with those

FMVSS which specify performance requirements to be met in barrier impacts if the manufacturer has satisfied itself through computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematic calculations, or other bases, that the vehicle would meet the performance requirements were it to be crash tested.

Our legislation establishes no requirements for vehicles constructed from used parts, or a mixture of them. It is possible that the Intruder consists of a new body placed on the chassis of a vehicle previously in use from which its original body has been removed. If this is the case, no certification is required, and a state may establish its own equipment requirements as a condition of registration.

In summary, the manufacturer of the Intruder has been under no obligation to report to us whether it has crash tested its vehicle. The Intruder is legal for sale in the U.S. under Federal law if it is constructed on a used chassis, or, if it is a new vehicle and it bears its manufacturer's certification of compliance with the FMVSS. We have no knowledge of its compliance with emissions requirements as those standards are issued and enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

You also asked "Is there an exemption to the safety . . . regulations for small volume 'passenger vehicle' manufacturers? If so, what are the rules for such an exemption?"

NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship were it required to meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only show hardship but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the standard from which it requests relief..

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:555

d:9/13/96

ID: 10188

Ms. Frances J. Chamberlain
6724 63rd Place N.E.
Marysville, Washington 98270

Dear Ms. Chamberlain:

This responds to your letter asking about how this agency's regulations might apply to your product. I apologize for the delay in sending this letter. You explained in a telephone conversation with Paul Atelsek of this office that your product is an emergency kit the size of an "oversize notebook." The kit contains a radio. In completing your design, you are considering whether to attach it to the back side of the front seats or under those seats. You asked whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has any regulations as to the distance that must be kept clear between the back side of the driver's seat and the back seat. You are considering marketing the kit for passenger cars and light trucks through retail outlets, and possibly also through automobile dealerships as an optional accessory.

The short answer to your question is that, while there are no regulations concerning clearance between the front and back seats, there are Federal requirements that may affect the sale of this product. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. These are contained in title 49, part 571 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As you recognize in your letter, your safety kit is an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment.

While your emergency kit is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such an item. Nevertheless, there are other provisions of law that may affect the manufacture and sale of your product. Installation of your product on the back of front seats could have an impact on compliance with Standard No. 201, Occupant

protection in interior impact. S3.2 of that standard basically requires that seat backs have a certain amount of cushioning to provide protection when struck by the head of rear seat passengers during a crash. If your emergency kit were installed so that a hard object (e.g., the radio) contained within it were to be struck by the head, the requisite amount of cushioning might not be achieved. We note that there are no safety standards regulating the underside of the seats, which you have said is another interior space where you are considering mounting the emergency kit.

Which legal requirements apply depends on how your product is marketed. If your product were installed by a vehicle manufacturer as original equipment, the vehicle manufacturer would have to certify that the vehicle with the emergency kit installed complies with all FMVSS's, including Standard No. 201.

A commercial business that installs your emergency kit would also be subject to provisions of the U.S. Code that affect modifications of new or used vehicles. Section 30122(b) of Title 49 provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the system renders inoperative the vehicle's compliance with the FMVSS's. For instance, compliance with Standard No. 201 might be degraded if the emergency kit were mounted in front of rear seat passengers. Any violation of this "make inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications that vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your emergency kit in their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles. In addition, individual States have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles, so you might wish to consult State regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:VSA d:2/6/95

ID: 1932y

Mr. John Schroeter
August Industries
26717 216th Av., S.E.
Maple Valley, WA 98038

Dear Mr. Schroeter:

This responds to your letter asking for information about the application of Federal safety standards to a head restraint that attaches to the rear window of pickup trucks. I regret the delay in responding. I hope the following information is helpful.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for head restraints (Standard No. 202) applies only to completed new passenger cars and not to a head restraint device sold as an item of "aftermarket" equipment for pickup trucks.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the head restraint device. Under the Safety Act, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your head restraints contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed), would also affect your head restraint if your product is installed by a commercial business on either new or used vehicles. A manufacturer installing your head restraint device on a new truck prior to certifying the truck as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, as required by the Safety Act, has certain responsibilities relating to that obligation to certify. Standard No. 302 establishes flammability resistance requirements for trucks that must be met by certain vehicle components, including head restraints. The new vehicle manufacturer that installs your product on the new vehicle would have to certify the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 302, and thus would be required to ensure that the head restraint device conforms to the flammability resistance requirements of the standard.

A commercial business that installs the head restraint on new or used vehicles would be subject to statutory considerations that affect whether the business may install your product on a vehicle without violating the Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." This section requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) installing your head restraint device on new or used vehicles to ensure that the addition of the apparatus would not negatively affect the compliance of any component or design on a vehicle with applicable Federal safety standards. For example, the commercial entity must ensure that the addition of the device does not degrade from the safety provided by flammable-resistant materials in the vehicle's interior compartment which have been installed in accordance with Standard No. 302. Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the materials which were present in the vehicle at the time of its sale to the first consumer and were certified as meeting FMVSS No. 302. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

However, the prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing the head restraint, even if doing so would negatively affect some safety feature in his or her vehicle.

In addition to the materials described above, I am also enclosing a Federal Register notice (53 FR 50047) that NHTSA issued on December 13, 1988, proposing to extend the applicability of Standard No. 202 to light trucks and vans. NHTSA has proposed to make this extension effective September 1, 1991. We expect to announce the agency's next step in the rulemaking proceeding by this fall.

Please feel free to contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:VSA#202#302 d:8/7/89

ID: nht87-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John B. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager, Product Engineering Michelin Americas Research & Development Corp. P.O. BOX 1987 Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that you currently mark a tire with the size designation 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J. You also stated that this tire has the same dimensions as a 15 R 22.5 Load Range J tire. You asked whether Standard No. 119 would prohibit the following size designation from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 LRJ (15R22.5)

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual man ufacturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations.

With respect to the 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J tire size, Michelin has not furnished any individual information for this tire size to the agency. The only standardization organization that has published tire and rim matching information for this tire siz e is the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), which did so in its 1987 yearbook. Accordingly, section S5.2 of Standard No. 119 provides that the information for this tire size in the 1987 ETRTO yearbook is considered to be information fo r Michelin's tires of that size.

The 1987 ETRTO yearbook shows the tire size only as 385/65 R 22.5. As noted above, section S6.5(c) requires that the tire size designation on the sidewall be "as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1". Reading this requirement as na rrowly as possible, S6.5(c) prohibits Michelin from marking the tires as both 385/65 R 22.5 and 15 R 22.5, since the size is shown only as 385/65 R 22.5 in the publication designated in S5.1 of Standard No. 119.

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical infor mation necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohi biting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

File: FMVSS 119

15 May 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

This is in regards to the marking requirements of FMVSS 119. We have a tire which is marked with the tire designation 385/65R22.5 LRJ. This tire has the same dimensions as the 15R22.5 LRJ and therefore can replace that tire. Would the following marking m eet the requirements of FMVSS 119?

385/65R22.5 LRJ (15R22.5)

We would appreciate a prompt reply to this question.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

John B. White Engineering Manager Product Engineering

ID: Katz.1