ID: 1984-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie -- Manager, Support Section, Motor Vehicle Division Department of Transportation (Oregon)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 27, 1984, to Mr. Frank Turpin, which was forwarded to my office for reply, asking several questions concerning our regulations on certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The following discussions answer your questions.

You have asked first if there are any provisions in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, for or against the use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are steady burning rather than rotating. You have been unable to answer this question by referrals either to Standard No. 108 or SAE materials. Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act allows States and municipalities to impose higher standards than the Federal ones for vehicles procured for their own use (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), the agency has generally deferred to the judgment of governmental bodies in their equipment specifications.

You have not stated whether the blue warning lamps would be supplemental to the vehicle's existing lighting, or replacing some item of the vehicle's original equipment. If the lighting is supplemental (e.g., roof-mounted as are the warning lamps on police vehicles in this area), Standard No. 108 permits it if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Thus, a roof-mounted lamp, whether steady-burning or rotating, would appear permissible. If, however, the warning lamp was adjacent to a stop lamp or headlamp, or replaced a lamp such as a taillamp, a question of impairment could arise, and the burden would be on a State to demonstrate it had adopted a higher standard of performance.

Your second question asked whether there is a specific statement in our regulations or elsewhere which prohibits the attaching of materials to vehicle windshields and windows. The following discussion explains the effect of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and section 108(a)(2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) on tinting films and other materials placed on windshields and other windows.

Pursuant to the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

Tinting and other films are not glazing materials themselves and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard.

A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have darkly tinted films installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act provides that 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 in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You mentioned that you have recently received an inquiry from the U.S. Air Force concerning the placement of identification decals on a vehicle. We have received a similar inquiry and I am enclosing a copy of our response.

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

ENC.

Department of Transportation MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION

July 27, 1984

NHTSA

Attention: Francis J. Turpin

Dear Frank:

We would appreciate your help on some questions we have concerning federal regulations/requirements on certain vehicle equipment items.

1. Are there any provisions for or against use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are "steady burning" -- non flashing or rotating? We were unable to find any information regarding this in FMVSS 108 or in the SAE Standards covering vehicle lighting.

2. Is there a specific "statement" in the federal regulations or elsewhere that prohibits attaching material to vehicle windshields/windows? Presently it is not allowed by our state laws, if "the material prohibits of impairs the ability to see into or out of the vehicle." The availability of various window tinting materials and screening causes constant inquiries from law enforcement, manufacturing companies, repair shops, and individuals regarding this law. Also, we have recently received inquiries from the U. S. Air Force on placing their Identification Decals on windshields of Air Force personnels' private vehicles.

We respond to the window glazing inquiries with information from FMVSS 205 and ANSI Z26. (Ie, the 70% light transmittance requirements.) Also, we mention Section 108 (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, concerning rendering inoperative of vehicle equipment. But, we would like to also be able to provide a definite federal prohibition, with possible penalties, etc.

Thank you for any assistance you can give us.

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section

ID: 1985-02.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Jeffrey Richard -- JBR Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jeffrey Richard JBR Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield IA 52556

This responds to your letter inquiring about the Federal safety standards that would apply to a product you are planning to sell. You stated that the product is a 6 inch by 4 inch sheet of 1/8 inch thick semi-transparent rubber that is held on a side window of a vehicle by four suction cups. The purpose of the sheet is to shield vehicle occupants from the sun. The following discussion explains the applicability of our safety standards to your sun screen.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as those described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered, continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from applying sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may 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 a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

I am enclosing the sample of your product you sent with your letter. If you need further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffery R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosure

JRB Manufacturing P.O. Box 415 Fairfield, IA 52556 (515) 472-7249 Jeffrey Richard

To whom it may concern:

We are proud to have solved the problems of the glare form the sun, of the automobile driver and its passengers, with our all new Glare Stopper.

The Glare Stopper is a great help for stopping glare from babies eyes, while sitting in the required car seat. It is also a big help for the driver from glare when the sun is too low for the sun visor, or too far over. The Glare Stopper will easily stick, or adhere to, the glass, with its suction cups. It is easily moved with one hand. The Glare Stopper works well for coverage of the side mirror at night, when headlights blind driver from seeing ahead, one only has to stick it to the side glass over the mirror. Passengers also enjoy the Glare Stopper to cover the glare in the rear windshield, as well as rear side windows. Driver enjoys the Glare Stopper to cover glare off the hood as well as glare coming in the side window, or when the glare comes in just beside the rear mirror.

Glare Stopper now makes it safer for drivers to drive into the morning or evening sun. Being just about the size of a persons hand, 4" x 6", makes it easy to see around while being used by a passenger. For added safety, a warning label has been placed on the back of the Glare Stopper where it will obstruct driver's view.

Glare Stopper is made of a durable rubber called jolite. It can't be torn, just cut. It is a semi-transparent material.

I have spoken to the law officers and officials which were of the state of Iowa. They said the Glare Stopper didn't violate any of Iowa's obstruction or tint laws for automobiles, because it didn't cover a large portion of the windshield.

I did, however, want the approval of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

This is my first invention and company establishment, therefore I'd appreciate full consideration of my product. I have enclosed one full sample, as well as, portions of the other colors, which they come in.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Truly,

JRB Manufacturing Jeffrey Richard Owner/Inventor Manager/Salesman

P.S. The Glare Stopper's rough backside keeps it from reflecting the sun from your car into the eyes of an oncoming car. Enclosures

ID: nht87-1.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: J. C. Glasgow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. C. Glasgow 777 Royal Palm Drive Kissimmee, FL 32743

Dear Mr. Glasgow:

This responds to your November 10, 1986 letter seeking information concerning federal regulations and standards for custom made automotive and van bodies.

Your letter indicates that you plan to design and make fiberglass automobile and van bodies for sale to the public. Although there are no specific safety regulations concerning fiberglass bodies, you should be aware of the federal regulation; and standar ds that may apply to your business.

By way of background information, our agency is authorized, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391 et. seq.) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicle; and items of motor vehicle equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification "process under which each manufacturer is re sponsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

If there is a safety-related direct or noncompliance, you would be obligated to notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem without charge. Manufacturers who fail to provide notification of or remedy for a defect or noncompliance may be subj ect to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. That penalty is separate from and in addition to the one for the noncompliance itself. (A general information sheet describing the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act is enclosed.)

It is unclear from your letter whether you plan to alter finished automobiles and vans or whether you plan to perform manufacturing operations on incomplete vehicles. If it is your plan to alter finished vehicles, then you would be considered an "alterer " and subject to the requirements of 49 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 567.7, Requirements for persons who alter certified vehicles.

An alterer is a person who alters previously certified vehicles by means other than the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, or minor finishing operations, or in such a manner the vehicle's stated weight ratings are no lon ger valid. If the alteration is performed before the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the alterer must supplement the certification label by affixing an additional label stating that the vehicle as altered conforms to all app licable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) and also stating the firm or individual name of the alterer.

An alterer is also considered a "manufacturer" for the purposes of notification and recall for defects or noncompliance under the Act and is subject to the requirements of 49 C.F.R. Part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Reports.

Further, you must make sure that any conversions you make to certified vehicles do not harm the vehicles' safety features. Under S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not knowi ngly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design which is installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Commercial businesses tha t violate this section are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation.

If you are performing manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle, as that term is defined in 49 C.F.R. Part 568.3 so that it becomes a completed vehicle, then, you must meet the requirements in Part 563, Vehicles manufactured in two or more stages . Under Part 568.3, if you are a "final-stage manufacturer" you would be required to complete the vehicle in such a manner so that it conforms to all applicable safety standards. Also, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with th e certification requirements set forth in Part 567.5, Requirements for manufacturers of vehicles manufactured in two or more stages.

Your letter does not indicate the nature of the work that you expect to do on the vehicles. Therefore, this agency cannot adequately identify which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) set forth in 49 C.F.R. 571 will apply. I suggest tha t you examine the safety standards to decide how each could apply to your fiberglass design for automotive and van bodies. You should make special note of the following safety standards which may apply toward your design. Safety Standard No. 107, Reflect ing Surfaces; Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment; Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing materials: Safety Standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components; Safety Standard No. 214, Side door strength; Safety Standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance-passenger cars; Safety Standard No. 219, Windshield zone intrusion. You should be aware that additional federal safety standards may apply.

If you have any questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact this office.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. JC Glasgow 777 Royal Palm Drive Kissimmee, FL 32743

November 10, 1986

Dept. of Transportation Washington D.C.

Re: Regulations and Standards for the Performance of Auto and Van Bodies.

Subject: Custom Made Auto and Van Bodies for sale to the general public.

I am currently designing a fiberglass auto van body foe sale to the public. I need to know what federal regulations govern fiberglass auto and van bodies for public safety. When one of my vehicle bodies is in an accident I want to have followed existing federal regulations so that I cannot be sued for not doing so. Please rush. Thank you.

Sincerely,

JC Glasgow

ID: nht76-1.39

DATE: 06/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Womack for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dunlop Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters of March 22 and June 9, 1976, concerning the classification of motor-scooters and the tires designed for them.

"Motorcycle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 571.3 as:

a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground.

"Motor-driven cycle" is defined as:

a motorcycle with a motor than produces 5 brake horsepower or less.

The category of "motor-driven cycles" includes, but is not limited to, motorized bicycles. There is no definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter". Such a vehicle is a motorcycle and, depending on the brake horsepower of its engine, may also be a motor-driven cycle. In any event, a tire for use on such a vehicle is a motorcycle tire that is subject to all requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. The standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. However, your letter is being considered in the preparation of the forthcoming Federal Register notice on this subject.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

DUNLOP LIMITED

Ref: RGC/MJW/5859/40G

Richard B Dyson -- Assistant Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

March 22, 1976

Dear Mr Dyson

SCOOTER TYRES - MVSS 119

I am advised that american importers of scooters are insisting that tyres for these machines be labelled to show conformity with Standard 119 and this poses a number or problems, both legal and practical.

I am taking the liberty of writing to you for advice on this subject since it is closely related to the general question of the application of Standard 119 to the case of tyres for speed-restricted motorcycles i.e. the case covered in ETRTO submission No. 6/119 dated 5 February 1975; for ease of reference I would advise that you acknowledged this petition in your letter N40-30MS dated 4 March 1975 and also advised in your letter N40-30, dated 26 February 1976, that you expected a Federal Register notice on this petition to be published shortly.

The primary problem is one of definition, since I cannot find any legal definition of "scooter" or "motor-scooter".

On the other hand it can be argued, with justification, that a scooter falls within the definition of "motorcycle" or "motor-driven cycles" of part 571.3 "Definitions" depending on the brake horse power of the engine with which the machine is equipped.

I would believe - and perhaps you would be kind enough to confirm this - that the term "motor-driven cycle" is intended to cover motorised bicycles e.g. mopeds, rather than vehicles whose sole source of propulsion is an engine.

Should this be the case then we are left with the definition of motorcycle as including scooters and while this is legally reasonable the resulting implications are somewhat unreasonable within the context of Standard 119 and, in particular, the high speed test requirement of Standard 119.

This test is designed to establish a high speed capability for motorcycle tyres of 85+mph on a test drum which equates to a speed significantly greater than 85 mph on the road and is a prefectly reasonable test for "full-blooded" motorcycles which normally have a speed capability of this order, but is totally unrealistic for scooter tyres, since scooters, in general, are, by design and nature of the vehicle, of much lower speed capability, normally c50-60 mph max. It is for this reason that they are equipped with very small tyres, usually in the order of 4" tyre section width and fitting wheels of 8", 10" or occasionally 12" diameter - clearly these are tyres not designed for very high speed operations.

However, unless scooters are defined differently from motorcycles these small tyres will be required to pass the high speed test of Standard 119.

An alternative, which I would believe to be legally admissible, would be to mark scooter tyres as speed-restricted tyres reference Standard 119 para. S6.5 (e), on the basis that the high speed test would no longer be applicable. In the case of scooter tyres the speed restriction could be 60 mph which would then directly relate scooter tyres to "tyres for small cubic capacity motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)" of ETRTO submission No. 6/119.

Should this alternative be the one adopted this would resolve the problem of the high speed test but there would then remain the question of the breaking energy values to be used i.e. either the values in Table 2 of Standard 119 under the title "motorcycle" or under the title "all 12" or smaller rim size" and this can presumably be resolved only after a decision is taken on whether scooters remain within the definition of motorcycle or are separately defined e.g. as "motorcycles of restricted speed capability 60 mph max".

In view of the fact that our inability to determine the relevance of scooter tyres within the context of Standard 119, and hence the test and markings which are applicable, it will be appreciated that there is a certain barrier to trade in this context; thus your earliest advice on the problems expressed above would be appreciated and, in particular, your advice on whether this problem can be treated as an extension of ETRTO petition No. 6/119.

Yours sincerely

R G CLIFTON -- Manager - Tyre Legislation

ID: nht88-2.83

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ALICE COLLINS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 01/15/88, TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM ALICE COLLINS

TEXT: Dear Mrs. Collins:

This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activitie s in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I wi ll address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman.

Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a d efect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager.

With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MP V, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle

2 class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria.

In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr. Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an Augu st 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information.

As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition again st vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our C onstitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr. Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government.

In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief t hat school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school c hildren by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupa nt's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus.

3

I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for veh icles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles. "

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: 2637o

Mr. E. W. Dahl
Vice President
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company
Akron, Ohio 443l6-000l

Dear Mr. Dahl:

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. ll9, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. You asked whether the standard would prohibit the following size designations from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 REPLACES l5R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES l6.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES l8R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. ll9.

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."

As noted by your letter, NHTSA recently provided an interpretation letter to Michelin, dated July 9, l987, concerning one of the exact sizes included in your request. The agency stated the following:

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 information 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" to be labeled on the tire. Considering the past history associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohibiting 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.

The tire size marking at issue in the Michelin interpretation differs from your proposed marking in that it did not include the word "replaces." You stated the following:

In the case at hand, the metric size tires are dimensionally equivalent to the sizes being replaced, and have equal or greater load capacity. There is bona fide intent that the replacement sizes will in due course supersede the replaced sizes in terms of production and marketing. We wish to emphasize that the markings in question are not intended as an effort by Goodyear to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their vehicles.

As indicated in our letter to Michelin, the only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. Any practice of using dual-size markings has the potential for confusing consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle, since consumers may erroneously believe that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of more than one tire size designation. For example, a consumer seeing a tire marking that size A replaces size B might erroneously believe that it is appropriate to replace size A with size B.

You cited a l974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. l09 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR l0l62.

I would note several things about the background and subsequent history of that NPRM. The NPRM indicated that despite the clear language in Standard No. l09 that each tire must be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used," NHTSA had previously taken the position [in interpretation letters] that replacement markings constituted an exception to this requirement. (Emphasis added.) The interpretation letters had not offered any basis for concluding that this exception existed. (See June 8, l97l letter to Mercedes-Benz; January l9, l972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, l973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. l09, to allow, subject to certain conditions, the labeling of replacement tire size designations." However, the NPRM was not adopted as a final rule. We also note that while the l97l-72 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, l980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. l09 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. ll9 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, l987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. ll9 prohibits a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if the word "replaces" is used.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:l09#ll9 d:1/7/88

ID: 2792o

Mrs. Alice Collins
703 Cohassett Ave.
Lake Wales, FL 33853

Dear Mrs. Collins:

This is a response to your letter of January 15, 1988. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. In your letter, you described yourself as a parent of school-age children, and as a volunteer who drives children to school-related activities in your 1986 Plymouth Voyager mini-van. You stated that in the 1986-1987 school year, the U.S. Department of Transportation decided that Voyager Mini-Vans were "unsafe." You go on to say that "the classification of M.P.V. was used on all mini-vans," and suggest that it is a mistake to characterize your Voyager as a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) because it is more like a passenger car than a truck. You concluded by asking us to change the decision that the Plymouth Voyager mini-van is unsafe. You raised other concerns in telephone conversations with Joan Tilghman, a member of my staff. First, I will address the request in your letter that the Department change what you believe is a decision concerning the safety of your vehicle. Then, I will address the matters you raised in conversations with Ms. Tilghman.

Let me begin by assuring you that the agency has never stated that the Plymouth Voyager is "unsafe." Except in the context of a specific enforcement proceeding, NHTSA does not make blanket determinations that vehicles are "safe" or "unsafe." Instead, we establish safety standards, and manufacturers must certify that each of their vehicles complies with all applicable standards. If we determine that a group of vehicles fails to comply with an applicable standard, or that a group of vehicles contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, we order the manufacturer to recall the vehicles. Again, we make these determinations only in the context of an enforcement proceeding. There has been no such proceeding with respect to the 1986 Plymouth Voyager.

With respect to your suggestion that it was a mistake to classify the Voyager as an MPV, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine, in the first instance, what a vehicle's classification should be. Chyrsler has classified the Voyager as an MPV, and so must certify that the Voyager meets all Federal safety standards applicable to that vehicle class. We have no information which suggests that Chrysler's classification of the Voyager is incorrect under our classification criteria.

In your conversations with Ms. Tilghman, you explained that the Tallahassee, Florida school district will not permit parents to transport school children to school-sponsored or school-related events in MPVs, such as the Voyager. However, you stated that the district will permit parents to transport children to school-sponsored or school-related events in passenger cars. You said that the school district is following a recommendation by this agency that Florida school districts not condone transporting children to school-related events in buses other than certified school buses. Your understanding is that NHTSA made this recommendation to the State of Florida in an April 25, 1986 letter to Mr.Arnold Spencer, and repeated the recommendation in an August 7, 1986 letter to Mr. Larry McEntire. I have enclosed copies of both letters for your information.

As you see, NHTSA made no such recommendation in either letter. Instead, we explained that we do not regulate the use of vehicles by owners, nor do we require the use of particular vehicles for particular purposes. There is no Federal prohibition against vehicle owners using their own vehicles to transport school children to school-related events. We also noted that the individual States have authority to establish any such regulations, in accordance with the principles of federalism set out in our Constitution. The State of Florida had already made its own decision to adopt and implement this policy before we were contacted by either Mr.Spencer or Mr. McEntire on this subject. Any changes to that policy would also reflect a decision by the State of Florida, not the Federal government.

In the letter to Mr. Spencer, we made the observation that Florida's policy that school boards not condone transporting school children in vehicles that are not certified as complying with our school bus safety standards, "is consistent with our belief that school buses certified to our school bus safety standards are the safest means of transportation for school children." This was not a recommendation to the State of Florida, but a statement of our belief about the superior safety afforded to school children by buses that are certified as complying with our school bus standards. That belief continues to be supported by data showing that school buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are the safest form of ground transportation in the United States because the passenger seats are "compartmentalized" (special seat padding and spacing, and high seat backs); and because of the vehicle's size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening crash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus.

I am sending you information on the agency's New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). NCAP is an experimental program in which we test light-duty vehicles, MPVs among them, to see how well they perform in a high-speed crash. You will find test results for vehicles that NHTSA has tested over the past few years, including results for the 1984 and 1987 Plymouth Voyager. Also, you will find the agency's April, 1988 report to Congress titled, "Safety Programs for Light Trucks and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles."

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Joan F. Tilghman, of my staff, at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:VSA#571 d:8/1/88

ID: 3277yy

William E. Kenyon
Mr. K's Original Headsaver
Patented Restraint Systems
6560 North Scottsdale Road, Suite H103
Scottsdale, AZ 85253

Dear Mr Kenyon:

This responds to your letter regarding a head restraint system your company is producing for use in pickup trucks with bench seats. You indicated that your company's head restraints meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in Standard No. 202, Head Restraints. As support for this statement, you enclosed with your letter an affadavit, in which you stated that you had tested your company's head restraint in accordance with Standard No. 202 and that the results of the testing showed that your company's head restraint complied with the performance requirements of Standard No. 202. Accordingly, you stated that you would like your company's head restraint system to be "federally approved as an after-market safety product." As I will explain in more detail below, this agency has no authority to approve, endorse, or offer assurances of compliance for any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment.

By way of background information, Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 202, Head Restraints (49 CFR 571.213), which applies to all new passenger cars, and all new trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 202 for your information.

The Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment sold or imported into the United States comply with the safety standards adopted by NHTSA. Specifically, 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act [15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)] provides:

no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver into introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard and is covered by a certification issued under 114...

With respect to your company's product, please note that Standard No. 202 applies only to new motor vehicles and requires the motor vehicle manufacturer to certify that its vehicle complies with the standard. By its own terms, Standard No. 202 does not apply to head restraints as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, the Safety Act does not require manufacturers of head restraints to certify that the head restraint complies with Standard No. 202 before selling the product.

Additionally, the Safety Act does not authorize NHTSA to certify or approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment as complying with our standards. In this regard, the process for certifying compliance with applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is substantially different than that used in many other countries. For instance, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver their products to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity itself tests the product, the government approves the product for use and assigns it an approval code.

In place of this sort of process, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meets all applicable Federal safety standards. The manufacturer's certification need not be based on actual tests in accordance with the standard. United States law only requires that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of "due care" on the part of the manufacturer. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what test results, engineering analyses, computer simulations, or other information it needs to certify compliance with the applicable safety standards. Once the manufacturer has made this determination and certified its product in accordance with the applicable standard, it is free to offer the product for sale in the United States. The agency periodically tests vehicles and items of equipment that have been certified by the manufacturer to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with the safety standards. NHTSA also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety.

Although we do not have any safety standards that directly apply to your product, there are several provisions of the Safety Act that apply to the sale of aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your head restraints are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In addition, the use of aftermarket items could be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair shop from knowingly "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. The effect of this provision is to make it unlawful for any of the named commercial establishments to replace an original equipment head restraint with an aftermarket head restraint if the commercial establishment knows or should know that the switch to the aftermarket head restraint results in the vehicle no longer complying with Standard No. 202.

Finally, I have enclosed an information sheet which identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. This information sheet also explains how to obtain copies of those regulations.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures

/ref:202 d:1/15/92

ID: 7556

Mr. Takashi Odaira
Chief Representative
Emissions & Safety
Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.
46401 Commerce Center Drive
Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Odaira:

This responds to your letter asking about the side door strength test procedures of Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection, as they apply to a certain pickup truck design. You described three alternative methods of fixing the vehicle in position and asked whether they are consistent with the standard's test procedure.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

S4(a) of Standard No. 214 sets forth the following procedures for fixing a vehicle in position for the quasi-static side door strength test:

Place the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface. Fix the vehicle rigidly in position by means of tiedown attachments located at or forward of the front wheel centerline and at or rearward of the rear wheel centerline. (Emphasis added.)

The side door strength test is then conducted by applying a loading device to the outer surface of the door, until the loading device travels 18 inches. See S4(d).

You asked about these procedures in connection with a certain pickup truck design, which can be described as follows. The cab of the truck is attached to the frame by means of flexible rubber mountings. The rear body is installed separately on the frame. The cab of the truck is over the front wheels, and the rear body is over the rear wheels.

You requested our comments on three alternative methods of testing the pickup truck at issue. The first would involve fixing the frame of the vehicle at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and real wheel centerlines. You stated, however, that the rear portion of the cab would not be rigidly fixed by this method, and that the application of the Standard No. 214 loading device would result in the stretching of the cab's rubber mountings and upward tilting of the cab as a whole.

Your second alternative would involve adding a third fixing of the vehicle, in addition to the front and rear fixings of Alternative 1. This additional fixing would be at the rear of the cab, on both sides. You indicated that this would permit the side door strength test to be conducted without tilting the vehicle, but that the relative cab to frame fixing would not be the same as on an actual vehicle.

Your third alternative would involve fixing the cab alone to a test fixture, at three locations. You stated that a problem with this method may be that the cab itself, and not the vehicle, is tested.

In considering how the Standard No. 214 quasi-static test should be conducted for a particular vehicle, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of the test is to measure the crush resistance of a side door. The agency is not measuring the extent to which a vehicle's suspension or other design features permit the vehicle to tilt when specified loads are applied. In order to measure the crush resistance of a door in a test, it is necessary that the vehicle be fixed rigidly in position. Otherwise, the application of a load to the side door could simply result in movement of the vehicle as a whole.

Standard No. 214's test procedure was developed initially for cars. As noted by your letter, the combination of tying the vehicle down at or forward of, and at or rearward of, the front and rear wheel centerlines and placing the sill of the side of the vehicle opposite to the side being tested against a rigid unyielding vertical surface is sufficient to rigidly fix a passenger car in position for test purposes. Your letter raises the issue of how the Standard No. 214 test should be conducted if the specified procedure does not result in a particular vehicle, such as one with a divided body, being rigidly fixed in position.

For purposes of compliance testing, NHTSA would take the following actions. First, the agency would examine whether the procedure set forth in S4(a) would result in the vehicle being rigidly fixed in position. This could involve considering various tiedown arrangements within the areas specified by S4(a). If the agency determined that the procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix a vehicle in position, e.g., the entire cab of a pickup truck would tilt upward during a test, it would then follow the specified procedure but also add an additional tiedown attachment as necessary to rigidly fix the vehicle in position. In making this additional attachment, the agency would take care to ensure that the attachment did not interfere with the side door strength test.

I can offer the following comments on the three alternative test methods you described. NHTSA would not follow the Alternative 1 test procedure since the vehicle would not be rigidly fixed in position under that procedure. The agency would also not follow the Alternative 3 test procedure since it does not include one of the tiedown arrangements specified by S4(a). The agency might follow an approach along the lines of Alternative 2, assuming that it determined that the S4(a) procedure was not sufficient to rigidly fix the vehicle in position.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:214 d:10/5/92

ID: nht79-3.11

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education, State of Mississippi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 7, 1979, letter asking whether any Federal law (statutes, standards, regulations or guidelines) prohibits a school district in the State of Mississippi from converting the gasoline fuel system in school buses which it owns to a butane or propane powered system. You specified that you would like this question answered both with respect to new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system and older school bus chassis not equipped with such a system. As explained below, none of the laws we administer would prohibit converting any school bus, regardless of when it was manufactured.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 ("the Act"), 15 U.S.C. et seq., the agency has issued Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity (49 CFR 571.301-75). This standard specifies performance requirements for the fuel system of certain new motor vehicles. It applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars, or (2) multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, or buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000, pounds or less or (3) school buses with a (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds.

New vehicles (i.e., vehicles that have not yet been sold and delivered to a purchaser for purposes other than resale) manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 may be converted to propane or butane systems. Upon the conversion of the vehicles to types of fuel systems not covered by the standard, the vehicles would cease to be subject to the standard.

Similarly, used vehicles manufactured in accordance with the standard as well as used vehicles manufactured before the effective date of the standard may be converted. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) limits tampering with the fuel systems of vehicles manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75. It does not apply at all to vehicles manufactured before the standard's effective date. The section, in essence, prohibits the entities and persons listed below from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable motor vehicle safety standards. There is no prohibition against vehicle owners modifying their own vehicles. Specifically, section 108(a)(2)(A) provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, 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 . . . .

There is no liability under section 108(a)(2)(A) in connection with FMVSS 301-75 if one of the listed persons or entities converts a used gasoline powered vehicle into a propane powered vehicle. Modifying safety systems of a vehicle being converted from one vehicle type to another does not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) so long as the modified systems comply with the FMVSS's that would have been applicable to the vehicle had it been originally manufactured as the vehicle type to which it is being converted. For example, in converting a gasoline powered school bus (a vehicle type covered by the standard) to a propane or butane-powered school bus (a vehicle type not covered by the standard), the converter could not violate section 108(a)(2)(A) with respect to FMVSS 301-75 since this standard does not apply to butane or propane powered school buses. FMVSS 301-75 applies only to vehicles that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F, and propane and butane reach their boiling points at a lower temperature.

This means that a school district in your state would not be prohibited from converting its gasoline-powered buses, regardless of their date of manufacturer, to propane or butane-powered school buses. It also means that if the school district sought to have the conversion done by a motor vehicle repair business or some other person or entity listed in Section 108(a)(2)(A), that person or entity would not be prohibited from performing the work.

Please note, however, that if a propane or butane fuel system is installed in a new vehicle, the installer would be responsible for any safety defects in the manner in which the system is installed. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that if vehicles are found to contain a safety defect, notification of the defect must be given and the defect must be remedied. Defects in the systems themselves would be the responsibility of the manufacturer of the systems, regardless of whether they are installed in new or used vehicles.

I hope that you will find this response helpful and you have not been inconvenienced by our delay in sending it to you.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

State of Mississippi DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

May 7, 1979

Roger Tilton -- U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Reference is made to your conversation with Mr. Walter Corban, Supervisor of Pupil Transportation, Mississippi State Department of Education, last week regarding the use of butane and propane gas in the operation of school buses in this state. Would you please provide me with answers to the following questions?

1. Are there any laws, standards, regulations, or guidelines at the federal level which would prohibit a school district in this state from converting a new school bus chassis equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system from gasoline to butane or propane?

2. Are there any laws, standards, regulations, or guidelines at the federal level which would prohibit a school district in this state from converting an older school bus chassis which is not equipped with the mandatory fuel integrity system from gasoline to butane and propane?

Your prompt reply to these questions will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leonard Cain, Director -- School Building and Transportation