ID: 86-6.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/29/86

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: STEPHEN T. WAIMEY -- LEBEOUF, LAMB, LEIBY AND MACRAE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/17/86 RE FMVSS 103 AND 104, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL OCC-0349

TEXT: Dear Mr. Waimey:

This responds to your letter regarding the method of determining the windshield areas required to be cleared under Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, and Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. I regret the delay in responding to your letter.

You state in your letter that your client, Porsche, is considering a windshield design that would be five percent smaller than the area of the windshield or glazing surface established as Area "A" in Standard No. 104. Area "A" is the largest of the three windshield areas, designated in that standard as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each of these areas is required to have a certain percentage defrosted within a specified time period under Standard No. 103. Similarly, each of these areas is required to have a certain percentage wiped under Standard No. 104. These areas are established by the angles which are set forth in the SAE Recommended Practices and referenced in Standards Nos. 103 and 104. Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 states that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

You also say in your letter that you understand that the percentages of the "A" area of the windshield, which are required to be cleared under these standards, are based on actual windshield size, less a one-inch border, rather than the theoretical windshield size that is derived using the specified angles in the referenced SAE procedures. You conclude that only the portion of Area "A," for example, which falls on an actual windshield, less a one-inch border, need be used in calculating the percentageswhich are required to be cleared under these standards.conclude that any portion of Area A which falls outside a windshield's actual size is immaterial with regard to the areas required to be cleared under these standards.

2

The agency believes your interpretation of Area "A" is correct, for the following reasons. Unlike the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 128, Fields of Direct View, which was issued and rescinded in 1981, Standards Nos. 103 and 104 were not intended to regulate the size of structural and other obstructions in the driver's field of direct view. Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 103 requires each passenger car windshield defrosting and defogging system to meet the requirements of section 3 of SAE J902, when tested in accordance with paragraph S4.3 of the standard, except that the "entire windshield" specified in SAE Recommended Practice J902 must be that established as Area A in accordance with Standard No. 104.

Thus, Area A is defined according to the requirements of Standard No. 104. Paragraph S4.1.2.1 of Standard No. 104 states that Area A of a passenger car windshield must be established as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966, using the angles specified in Columns 3 through 6 of Table I, II, III, or IV, as applicable. These tables are set forth in Standard No. 104 and apply to passenger cars of specified overall widths, i.e., from less than 60 inches to 68 or more inches. The angles in these tables vary according to the overall width of the passenger car model. This office agrees that the projection of the correct angles onto an actual windshield surface may produce a projected surface larger than the windshield itself and that only the portion of Area A which is projected onto the actual windshield is material.

Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104 also limits the percentage of the windshield required to be cleared to that inside the perimeter line on the windshield one inch from the edge of the daylight opening. Since Standard No. 103 references Standard No. 104 for the determination of Area A, this office also agrees that the percentages of the windshield required to be cleared under Standard No. 103 are those inside the perimeter line on the windshield one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

As an aside, we note that you state in your letter that your conclusion is based on statements contained in SAE Recommended Practices J903c and SAE J902b. Paragraph S4.2 of Standard No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, references SAE Recommended Practice J902, Passenger Car Windshield Defrosting Systems, August 1964, not SAE Recommended Practice J902b, as stated in your letter. Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, references SAE Recommended Practice 903a, May 1966, not SAE J903c, as stated in your letter. In any case, we do not believe the quoted statements affect the requirements of either Standard No. 103 or Standard No. 104, because each reference in the safety standards to an SAE Recommended Practice is to a specific portion of it, not to general language such as your quotation.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-4.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LANCE E. TUNICK, -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MASERATI AUTOMOBILES, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/04/85 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER TO STEPHEN T. WAIMEY AND DEAN HANSELL, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 11/10/75 FROM FRANK A. BERNDT TO JOHN B. WHITE, N40-30, SECTION 108(B)(5); LETTER DATED 10/20/88 FROM LANCE E. TUNICK TO ERIKA Z. JON ES, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 208, OCC 2696

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tunick:

This responds to your October 20, 1988 letter, in which you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208). More specifically, you noted that section S4.1.3 requires a specified percentage of a manufacturer 's annual production to be equipped with automatic occupant protection. You stated that some vehicles imported into the United States may subsequently be exported to Canada. Since section 108(b)(5) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(5); the Safety Act) specifies that none of the safety standards apply to vehicles intended solely for export, your company assumes that it should not include vehicles subsequently exported to Canada in its annual production totals when determining compliance with S4.1.3 of Standard No. 208. This assumption is incorrect, as explained below.

In a September 4, 1985 letter to Messrs. Stephen Waimey and Dean Hansell (copy enclosed), we answered the question of how manufacturers that produce cars outside the United States should calculate their annual production to determine compliance with the phase-in requirements of Standard No. 208. That letter explains that foreign-based manufacturers should count the number of vehicles that were produced and certified for sale in the United States, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, durin g the relevant time period to determine their annual production for the purposes of Standard No. 208.

Your letter referred to section 108(b)(5) of the Safety Act, and suggested that this statutory provision means that any vehicles that are imported into the United States and subsequently exported to a different country should not be counted as part of th e manufacturer's annual production. I am happy to explain our view of what is permitted under that statutory provision.

Section 108(b)(5) provides that the requirements in the safety standards "shall not apply in the case of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle

equipment intended solely for export, and so labeled or tagged on the vehicle or item itself and on the outside of the container, if any, which is exported." This statutory language establishes three separate conditions that would have to be satisfied to exclude a vehicle from the requirements of the safety standards, including the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for purposes of Standard No. 208. These three conditions are:

1. The vehicle must be intended solely for export;

2. The vehicle must have a label or tag on it at the time it is imported which shows that the vehicle is intended solely for export; and

3. The vehicle must actually be exported.

We agree with your contention that a vehicle satisfying all three of these conditions would not be subject to the requirements of any of the safety standards, and could properly be excluded from the calculation of a manufacturer's annual production for t he purposes of Standard No. 208. For a similar interpretation regarding imported tires that are intended solely for export and so labeled, see the enclosed November 10, 1975 letter to Mr. John B. White. Of course, it would not be sufficient if only one of these conditions, such as the third one regarding actual exportation, were satisfied.

We are uncertain regarding the facts surrounding the vehicles that have already been imported into the United States and then exported to Canada and thus are unable to give an opinion concerning their satisfaction of the section 108(b)(5) conditions. It should be relatively simple for you to determine whether these vehicles satisfied the first two conditions. Did those vehicles truly just pass through the US on their way to Canada? To what country's standards were those vehicles certified and when? When the vehicles were imported into the United States, your company was required to complete a Form HS-7. That form allows the importer to declare that a vehicle is intended solely for export and that the vehicle bears a label or tag to that effect. W hat type of declaration was made with respect to the vehicles in question?

As to vehicles which Maserati Automobiles, Inc., wishes in the future to import into this country and pass directly through to Canada for sale there, satisfaction of each of the three section 108(b)(5) conditions will assure that the vehicles are not included in the Standard No. 208 calculations.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht89-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/15/89

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM BYUNG M. SOH TO TAYLOR VINRON; OCC 2648

TEXT: Dear Mr. Soh:

This responds to your letter of October 5, 1988, inquiring whether your "Starrace" hub cap violated Standard No. 211, Wheel Nuts, Wheel Discs, and Hub Caps (49 CFR @ 571.211) or any other of our safety standards. You explained that your self lighting hu b cap includes a motion activated LED light whose intensity varies according to the speed of the vehicle. You further noted that the LED, which has a maximum intensity of 40mmAmp, is designed for cosmetic rather than illuminating purposes. As explained below, your device would not appear to violate Standard No. 211. However, this device may present problems of compliance with Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR @ 571.108).

Standard No. 211 prohibits winged projections on wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. This prohibition extends to these items of motor vehicle equipment both as items of original equipment on new passenger cars and multipurpose vehicles and as items s old in the aftermarket as replacement parts for use on such vehicles. Judging by the picture enclosed with your letter, it does not appear that this hub cap has any winged projections. Nothing in Standard No. 211 explicitly prohibits LEDs on hub caps, wheel nuts, or wheel discs. Accordingly, your product does not appear to violate any provision of Standard No. 211.

However, the self lighting nature of your hub cap may raise questions under Standard No. 108. If this hub cap is marketed as original equipment to be installed before the initial sale of a motor vehicle, the vehicle with these hub caps installed must be certified as complying with Standard No. 108. Section S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 provides that "No additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." As I stated in my September 13, 1988 letter to you with respect to different equipment, we interpret this requirement as follows:

"Effectiveness may be impaired if the device creates a noncompliance in the existing lighting equipment or confusion with the signal sent by another lamp, or functionally interferes with it, or modifies its candlepower to either below the minima or ab ove the maxima permitted by the standard." (emphasis added)

Your product might impair the effectiveness of the required lighting by causing motorists to confuse its signal with the signal emitted by headlamps, stoplights, brakelights, taillights, side marker lamps, and other lighting devices. Such confusion is p ossible since your product is located on the wheels at approximately the same level as the lights required by Standard No. 108. This impairment of effectiveness would be especially likely if the hub cap lights were the same color (red, amber or white) as the lights required by Standard No. 108.

As for the aftermarket sale of your product, under @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not perform modifications that render inoperative, in whole or in part, an element of design, s uch as lighting equipment, installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Again, if these lighted hub caps would impair the effectiveness of the lighting required by Standard No. 108, we would consider each aftermarket installation of the hub c aps by the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to be a violation of the "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation of the "render ino perative" provision. Please note that the Safety Act does not restrict a vehicle owner from modifying his or her own vehicle, even if the modification resulted in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 108. Such modifications may, however, b e prohibited by State law.

Additionally, you should be aware that as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you will be subject to the requirements of sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of vehicles and equipment with defe cts related to motor vehicle safety. If it were determined that your product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you as the manufacturer would have to notify purchasers of the defect and either:

1. repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

In either case, the manufacturer must bear the full expense of the remedy and cannot charge the product owner for the remedy if the product was first purchased less than eight years before the notification campaign.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

ID: nht89-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/89

FROM: W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA

TO: CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/29/89 ESTIMATED, FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE; REDBOOK A34; STANDARD 205; 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 07/08/88 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 Congresswoman Morella:

I am writing in response to your letter of July 6, 1989, regarding Katherine M. Dante's letter to you requesting assistance in obtaining a waiver to permit tinted windows on her automobile. You may recall that Mrs. Dante suffers from a skin disease c alled Vitaligo, and has been advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays.

Unfortunately, the Motor Vehicle Administration has limited authority under present Federal law and regulations to waive standards for window tinting. Title 15, Section 1397(a) of the U.S. Code provides the standards for light transmittance permitted in a new vehicle's window glazing. That Section also makes it a violation of federal law for a car manufacturer, distributer, dealer or repair business to "render inoperative" the glazing installed in the new vehicle. Thus, after the new car is sold, a used car dealer or motor vehicle repair business cannot add tinting to a vehicle which would result in a light transmittance level which did not meet the federal standards for durability and opacity.

Current federal law does not allow for any medical exemptions from this prohibition. Federal law does not, however, prohibit an individual from applying window tinting to his or her own vehicle, even if such application results in a light transmittan ce level which does not conform with the federal standard. Maryland's regulations, however, do prohibit an individual from applying any tinting to a vehicle.

I am informed by my staff and the State Police that there are no window tinting products currently on the market which, when applied, would still meet the federal standard. I am attaching two explanations of this law - one from my counsel and one con tained in a letter from the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to Congresswoman Beverly Byron.

It seems to me there are two things that can be done. On the State level I will explore with the State Police the possibility of amending Maryland's regulation to allow an individual to apply tinting to his or her own vehicle for medical reasons. Ho wever, I believe that federal law should also be amended to allow a motor vehicle repair business to apply tinting which does not conform with federal standards if the tinting is needed for medical reasons. I frankly do not know how difficult it is to a pply tinting, but it seems ludicrous to state that an individual can apply tinting, but that that individual cannot hire someone else to apply it.

I hope my explanation and suggestions are helpful. Mrs. Dante is not alone in her frustration with this law. I intend to do all I can to provide for a medical waiver, but I think it is going to take a joint Federal/State effort to accomplish this g oal. I would be happy to pursue this further with you.

With kindest personal regards.

Sincerely,

Attachments

The abortion issue is now gone beyond "Right to(Illegible Word) It now threatens our Basic Bill of Rights and the Constitutes who is to say that in the future the table would be turned and mandatory abortions for population control, ie. China would be law. I urge you to side with "Freedom of Choice" and protect our Democracy.

2) Tinted Glass on Motor Vehicles

In the state of Maryland, the law states that only RV, Trucks, Vans, Mini Vans, Limo's are legally allowed to have tinted glass. This I find confusing. The operators of these Vehicles have to visualize traffic conditions the same as the operator of a passenger car. The MVA reason for permitting the tinted glass on the above vehicles, is that they posses a Rear View mirror on the passenger side of the Vehicle. As you are well aware this option is very easily attainable on a passenger car also.

I was informed that the statute stems from a federal law passed in early 1960's, however each state has the ability to ammend this statute. With current advances in technology since 1960's, both in the tinted films, and(Illegible Word) tint manufactu red into the glass, The Visual acuity is unaltered. Tinted glass decreases harmful Ultra Violet Rays, that cause glare for and heat within the automobile. This is especially noticed on those Hot, Humid, Washington D.C. Days, especially for passengers ( Illegible Word) in 3rd seats of STATION wagons. I feel there is no reason why passenger cars should be excluded from possessing tinted glass as long as it meets current industry specifications and the vehicle is properly equiped.

ID: 2666y

Mr. William Shapiro
Volvo Cars of North America
Rockleigh, NJ 07647

Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter about the built-in child seat Volvo has designed for the center rear seating position. The built-in seat uses the vehicle's lap-shoulder safety belt to restrain the child. I regret the delay in responding.

You indicated in a telephone conversation that Volvo is considering designing the seat solely for children who weigh more than 50 pounds. Such a seat is not subject to the requirements of Standard 213 because the seat is not a "child restraint" as that term is defined in the standard. Paragraph S4 of Standard 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds."

The agency would determine whether your built-in seat is designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds by considering available indications of the manufacturer's design intent, e.g., the physical suitability of the seat for use by children who weigh less than 50 pounds, and the manner in which the seat is labeled and marketed. The agency would look to see whether the seat is clearly and permanently labeled to show the size and age of children intended to be restrained by the system. We would also consider any indications in Volvo's marketing efforts and point of sale materials regarding the size and age of child that the seat is designed to restrain. Finally, we would consider any size and age information included in the vehicle's owner manual.

You also indicated Volvo may consider designating the seat as suitable for children weighing more than 40 pounds. If the seat were so designated, it would no longer be a seat designed solely for children weighing more than 50 pounds, and therefore be a child restraint system subject to Standard 213.

You ask whether, if Standard 213 applies to your seat, the standard permits such a seat. You state that the seat would meet the labeling and performance requirements of the standard. You believe that Standard 213 permits the seat because the final rule that amended 213 to set requirements directly applicable to built-in seats (53 FR 1783; January 22, 1988) said that paragraph S5.4.3.3 of the standard allows child restraint systems other than a 5-point harness system.

You are correct that the standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Paragraph S5.4.3.3 provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 (i.e., provide upper and lower torso restraint, and a crotch restraint (for seats for children weighing over 20 pounds), of a specific form). The definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes the vehicle's lap/shoulder belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language of S5.4.3.3, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems applies only to seats that have belts, and not to a seat such as yours that uses the vehicle's belt system.

Please note that Standard 213 sets limits on knee excursion for built-in seats (S5.1.3.1(b)). Thus, although your seat is not required to have a crotch strap, the seat must be designed to prevent a child from sliding excessively forward and down, legs first ("submarining").

The agency would like to emphasize its concern that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child, the lap belt should be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis of a child, the area of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. We cannot determine from your drawing whether the vehicle lap belt would be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. The instructions for the proper use of the built-in seat that are required by S5.6.2 of the standard should inform users how to properly adjust the belt system, so to avoid submarining and imposing impact loads to the child's abdomen.

The agency is also concerned that the sitting height of some children who may occupy the seat might not be high enough for the shoulder belt to be properly positioned when attached. Instead, the belt might pass in front of the child's neck or face. For those cases, if no other option is available, NHTSA believes that the shoulder belt should be placed behind the child's back. We recommend that you include information in the printed instructions about such adjusting of the shoulder belt for small children. As a reminder, NHTSA will use these adjustment instructions per S6.1.2.3.1 to position the three year old dummy in the seat if the agency tests the seat in its compliance program.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:213 d:9/l4/90

ID: GF009385

Mr. Karl Genest
518 Jodoin
St-Bruno, Quebec
CANADA
J3V 6G8




Dear Mr. Genest:

This responds to your letter of December 9, 2004, asking if any Federal regulations apply to your invention, which you describe generally as an accessory that attaches to the seatback of a vehicles front seat. You did not provide a description of your product except to note that it attaches to the seatback, and that "when attached to the back of a cars front seat, [my device] would intrude somewhat into the space occupied by passengers of the back seat". You state that the intrusion would be similar to those of two "car seat organizers," the photographs of which you enclose in your letter. In a phone conversation with George Feygin of my staff, you indicated that you intend to market your product in stores directly to consumers (in the "aftermarket").

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards applying to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment sold in or imported into this country. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

Because you did not describe your product, we are unable to provide an interpretation of the standards that could apply. However, we have the following general observations. Most of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) apply to the completed motor vehicle. Some FMVSSs apply to aftermarket equipment, including lamps and reflective devices, seat belt systems, and child restraints. Even if an FMVSS does not directly apply to your aftermarket product, there are several requirements that may affect you.

First, 30122 of the Safety Act (49 U.S.C. Chapter 301) prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "making inoperative, in whole or in part" any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. That is, your device could not be installed by such businesses if they determine that the installation of your invention would adversely affect the vehicles compliance with any safety standard.

With regard to your question about "possible intrusion zone" requirements affecting your product, it is possible that installation of this device could affect compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. This standard establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. S5.2 of FMVSS No. 201 specifies that an area of the seat back that is within the "head impact area," as defined in 49 CFR 571.3 (enclosed), is subject to the head impact protection requirements of the standard. In addition, installation of your product could affect the vehicles compliance with the flammability resistance requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (enclosed). That standard establishes flammability resistance requirements for certain vehicle components, including seat backs.

The make inoperative provision does not apply to vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. However, we recommend that owners not degrade the safety of their vehicles.

Second, please note that motor vehicle accessories are items of "motor vehicle equipment" subject to the notification and remedy (recall) provisions of 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the product and remedying the problem free of charge.

Third, I am enclosing a copy of a procedural rule that applies to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D, requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate an agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;
2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;
3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;
4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;
5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,
6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:201
d.2/16/05

ID: 3262o

Mr. Jack McCroskey
Ms. Glenda Swanson Lyle
Regional Transportation District
1600 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202-1399

Dear Mr. McCroskey and Ms. Lyle:

This responds to your letter of September 13, 1988, asking for our advice on potential safety hazards and legal liabilities that might result from ignoring the speed restrictions on the tires used on your transit buses. You stated that your entity operates three types of bus service in the State of Colorado. The first type is a local bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph); the second type is an express bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 55 mph; and the third type is a regional bus, operated primarily on freeways with speed limits of 55 to 65 mph. You were interested primarily in the tires used on your express buses.

You stated that you use two types of speed-restricted tires "almost interchangeably" on the express buses. One of your speed-restricted tire types is the XT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 55 mph. The other is the DXT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 35 mph. Since the express buses are operated primarily at speeds of 55 mph, you contacted the tire manufacturer to get its advice on the acceptability of using tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on these buses. You enclosed copies of correspondence you received from the manufacturer, stating that its DXT and XT tires are identical, except that the DXT tire has 7/32 of an inch more undertread. The manufacturer's advice was that the tire that is speed-restricted to a maximum of 35 mph "may be used at higher speeds; but not for sustained operation." You asked whether it is advisable for your entity to continue using the tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on your express buses, which operate primarily at 55 mph. We strongly recommend that you not do so.

There are some notable advantages associated with speed-restricted tires, including enhanced load-carrying capabilities and greater resistance to tire damage from hitting objects in the road or curbs. However, the greater undertread on speed-restricted tires also means that the tires will generate higher temperatures at high speeds than a comparable non-restricted tire. Higher temperatures inside the tire increase the chances of a tire failure at high speeds.

NHTSA carefully considered both the advantages of speed-restricted tires and the need to ensure that such tires are properly used when it was developing Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119; copy enclosed). Every new bus tire must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with this standard. This agency decided that Standard No. 119 should permit the continued production of speed-restricted tires, but with appropriate safeguards to ensure that these tires would not be used at higher speeds. Accordingly, Standard No. 119 specifies less stringent high speed and endurance test requirements for speed-restricted tires. Speed-restricted tires for use on vehicles other than motorcycles are exempted from the high speed performance requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 119. This exemption reflects the fact that the tires are not designed for high speed use. For the same reason, the endurance test schedule for speed-restricted tires consists of a lower test speed and fewer total revolutions of the test wheel, as shown in Table III of Standard No. 119. Hence, the manufacturer of these speed-restricted tires has not certified that these tires comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 under conditions exceeding the speed-restriction marked on the tires.

To ensure that the user of speed-restricted tires would not operate the tires at higher speeds than those at which the tires are designed to operate safely, section S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires every speed-restricted tire to have the marking "Max speed mph" on the sidewall. This marking is intended to alert the tire user of the limitations of this tire, so that it will not be repeatedly used at higher speeds. Since your express buses operate primarily at speeds of 55 mph, we urge you not to equip those buses with tires labeled "Max speed 35 mph." Similarly, since your express and regional buses typically operate at speeds exceeding 55 mph on their routes, we recommend only tires without speed restrictions for these buses.

With respect to your question about potential legal liabilities in the event one of these speed-restricted tires fails while in service on one of your express buses, that is a question of State law. Since I am not familiar with the Colorado law on this subject, I must decline to offer an opinion. However, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado or other local counsel would be able to accurately advise you on Colorado's law in this area.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:119 d:l2/9/88

ID: 3313o

Mr. Jack McCroskey
Ms. Glenda Swanson Lyle
Regional Transportation District
1600 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202-1399

Dear Mr. McCroskey and Ms. Lyle:

This responds to your letter of September 13, 1988, asking for our advice on potential safety hazards and legal liabilities that might result from ignoring the speed restrictions on the tires used on your transit buses. You stated that your entity operates three types of bus service in the State of Colorado. The first type is a local bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph); the second type is an express bus, operated primarily in areas where the speed limit is 55 mph; and the third type is a regional bus, operated primarily on freeways with speed limits of 55 to 65 mph. You were interested primarily in the tires used on your express buses.

You stated that you use two types of speed-restricted tires "almost interchangeably" on the express buses. One of your speed-restricted tire types is the XT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 55 mph. The other is the DXT, which is speed-restricted to a maximum speed of 35 mph. Since the express buses are operated primarily at speeds of 55 mph, you contacted the tire manufacturer to get its advice on the acceptability of using tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on these buses. You enclosed copies of correspondence you received from the manufacturer, stating that its DXT and XT tires are identical, except that the DXT tire has 7/32 of an inch more undertread. The manufacturer's advice was that the tire that is speed-restricted to a maximum of 35 mph "may be used at higher speeds; but not for sustained operation." You asked whether it is advisable for your entity to continue using the tires that are speed-restricted to 35 mph on your express buses, which operate primarily at 55 mph. We strongly recommend that you not do so.

There are some notable advantages associated with speed-restricted tires, including enhanced load-carrying capabilities and greater resistance to tire damage from hitting objects in the road or curbs. However, the greater undertread on speed-restricted tires also means that the tires will generate higher temperatures at high speeds than a comparable non-restricted tire. Higher temperatures inside the tire increase the chances of a tire failure at high speeds.

NHTSA carefully considered both the advantages of speed-restricted tires and the need to ensure that such tires are properly used when it was developing Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.119; copy enclosed). Every new bus tire must be certified by its manufacturer as complying with this standard. This agency decided that Standard No. 119 should permit the continued production of speed-restricted tires, but with appropriate safeguards to ensure that these tires would not be used at higher speeds. Accordingly, Standard No. 119 specifies less stringent high speed and endurance test requirements for speed-restricted tires. Speed-restricted tires for use on vehicles other than motorcycles are exempted from the high speed performance requirements of S6.3 of Standard No. 119. This exemption reflects the fact that the tires are not designed for high speed use. For the same reason, the endurance test schedule for speed-restricted tires consists of a lower test speed and fewer total revolutions of the test wheel, as shown in Table III of Standard No. 119. Hence, the manufacturer of these speed-restricted tires has not certified that these tires comply with the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 under conditions exceeding the speed-restriction marked on the tires.

To ensure that the user of speed-restricted tires would not operate the tires at higher speeds than those at which the tires are designed to operate safely, section S6.5(e) of Standard No. 119 requires every speed-restricted tire to have the marking "Max speed mph" on the sidewall. This marking is intended to alert the tire user of the limitations of this tire, so that it will not be repeatedly used at higher speeds. Since your express buses operate primarily at speeds of 55 mph, we urge you not to equip those buses with tires labeled "Max speed 35 mph." Similarly, since your express and regional buses typically operate at speeds exceeding 55 mph on their routes, we recommend only tires without speed restrictions for these buses.

With respect to your question about potential legal liabilities in the event one of these speed-restricted tires fails while in service on one of your express buses, that is a question of State law. Since I am not familiar with the Colorado law on this subject, I must decline to offer an opinion. However, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado or other local counsel would be able to accurately advise you on Colorado's law in this area.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:119 d:12/9/88

ID: 77-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

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

TO: Britax (Wingard) Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 5, 1977, requesting clarification of the relationship between paragraph S5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. It is your understanding that Standard No. 216 becomes "obsolete and ineffective" after August 15, 1977.

Your interpretation is incorrect. Standard No. 216 is a separate, independent standard from Standard No. 208 and remains effective in its present form regardless of the amendment of Standard No. 208 according to any of the three alternative proposals issued by Secretary Adams (42 FR 15935, March 24, 1977). Standard No. 216 is applicable to all passenger cars except those that conform to the rollover test requirements of paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by totally passive means.

Under existing Standard No. 208, a manufacturer must meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3 only if he chooses to use option S4.1.2.1 (total passive protection). If the manufacturer chooses this option he can meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 instead of the rollover requirements of S5.3 until August 15, 1977, but not after that date since the alternative then expires. A manufacturer choosing to use either option S4.1.2.2 or option S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3, at all. As a manufacturer of seat belts, you are undoubtedly aware that a majority of vehicle manufacturers choose to comply with Standard No. 208 by means of option S4.1.2.3.

If Secretary Adams' Alternative proposal I or Alternative proposal III becomes a final rule, Standard No. 208 will remain in the form just described above. The Secretary's Alternative II (mandatory passive restraints) proposes to make the lateral (S5.2) and rollover (S5.3) requirements of Standard No. 208 optional. A manufacturer would be permitted to use a totally passive system (meeting S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3) or to install lap belts and only meet the requirements of S5.1. If Alternative II were made final, most vehicle manufacturers would probably choose to install lap belts rather than to provide passive protection that would satisfy S5.3. As you noted, Alternative II also proposes to extend the option in paragraph S5.3 (complying with Standard No. 216 instead) from August 15, 1977, to August 31, 1980.

You are correct in your statement that the Secretary does not expect to reach a final decision on his alternative proposals until July.

SINCERELY,

MAY 5, 1977

Our ref: TVB/MPJ

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 571. Docket No. 74 14; Notice 08. March 24th 1977.

I would appreciate any clarification which you can give on the present status of FMVSS 216 and 208 in relation to the document reference on the heading.

On page 15937 of Notice 08 there are proposed three approaches to the amendment of Standard No. 208. Approach I and Approach III do not give us any problems in understanding, but there are certain parts of Approach II where we would be glad of clarification. In Section 2 of Approach II the date of August 15th 1977 would be changed to read August 31st 1980.

We are concerned particularly where this appears in S5.3. As we understand S5.3 in Federal Standard 208, as referenced, the rollover test is not compulsory if testing and conformity to FMVSS 216 has been carried out. Our understanding of S5.3 is that vehicles manufactured on or after August 15th 1977 would have to meet the requirements of S5.3 without the option of alternative certification under Standard No. 216. In other words that Standard 216 would at that date become obsolete and ineffective. Can you please confirm, or otherwise, the following statement:

1. As the Regulations stand at present vehicles manufactured on or after August 14th 1977 would be required to meet S5.3 of Standard 208.

2. As of August 15th 1977 the testing of vehicles to Standard No. 216 becomes irrelevant in all respects.

3. That this situation would stand if either Approach I or Approach III were taken as the amendement to Standard No. 208.

4. That no official decision on the amendement of 208 by means of any of the three approaches will be available before July 1st 1977.

We are not only interested in the applicability of Standard 208 with regard to occupant protection but also from the viewpoint of the use of either Standard 208 or Standard No. 216 in relation to body strength and in particular roof crush, if there is manufacturer or replacement equipment fitment of an opening roof unit.

It appears to us, as mentioned above, that testing for conformity to Standard No. 216 is likely to be irrelevant for any purpose after August 15th this year.

Any clarification you can give would be greatly appreciated.

T.V. Barlow Safety Engineer -- BRITAX (WINGARD) LTD.

ID: 1984-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheeskin; Hillman & Lazar; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jacob Sheeskin Sheeskin, Hillman & Lazar, P.C. 6110 Executive Boulevard P.O. Box 2186 Rockville, MD 20852

RE: your file 3189/001:11

Dear Mr. Sheeskin:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1984, concerning discussions between your client and the Maryland State Police about the application of tinting or sun screening materials to vehicle glazing materials. This office has sent two letters of interpretation concerning the application of glazing materials to the Maryland State Police. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's letters of December 20, 1983 and April 3, 1984 and the Maryland States Police's original request for an interpretation.

As stated in our letter of April 7, 1984, the application of tinting materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if it knowingly installed on a passenger car's window a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance or luminous transmittance requirements of the standard.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 7, 1984

In reply refer to: Our File No. 3189/001:11 Gerald S. Lakas, t/a Custom Window Tinting Services

Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This will confirm my telephone conversations of March 5th and 6th with Steve Oesch, Esquire, of your office. I informed Mr. Oesch that I represent Gerald S. Lakas, t/a Custom Window Tinting Services. Mr. Lakas is in the business of tinting automobile windows in the state of Maryland. On March 2, 1984 he received a call from the Automotive Safety Enforcement Division of the Maryland State Police which in effect ordered him to cease and desist his business immediately. A statement by the Maryland State Police officer was that as a result of a recent court case in Hawaii and as a result of a recent ruling by your office that the addition of tinting film or sunscreen materials to vehicle glazing on passenger cars is not in conformance with abrasion resistance requirements and may also exceed allowable luminous transmittance requirements set forth in 49 CFR 571.205. It is also our understanding that the Maryland State Police issued a directive that Class A Maryland registered passenger vehicles would not be permitted to have window tinting that was not incorporated into the original glazing on any window by the manufacturer.

Mr. Oesch of your office was kind enough to furnish us with a copy of USA Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways and we, of course, reviewed 49 CFR 571.205 as well as 15 USCA 1391, et seq.

After reviewing the above material we came to the conclusion that the addition of tinting film or sunscreen materials in and of itself does not violate any federal regulation as long as the material complies with the luminescence and abrasive requirements. I asked Mr. Oesch if it is possible for us to obtain a statement to this effect from your office and he suggested that I write this letter to you. We have talked to the manufacturer of the tinting material that our client uses and we are assured by the manufacturer that the material complies with federal regulations. We have also suggested to our client that he have his material tested locally to make sure he is in compliance.

For your information we enclose a copy of a letter we have addressed to Captain W.R. Janey of the Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division which explains the position we have taken with said facility. We do not feel that the Maryland State Police had any authority to order Mr. Lakas to cease his operations. We have advised Mr. Lakas that we feel he should stay in business until such time it has been demonstrated that his materials do not comply with federal regulations and if they do not comply we suggested that he seek another supplier of material or that his materials be modified to comply with federal regulations. It is not our client's intention to violate any federal or state law or regulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Oesch for his very prompt attention to my inquiry. He was most informative and very helpful in resolving my client's problem.

Very truly yours,

Jacob Sheeskin

JS/drw