ID: aiam3945

Dear Sirs: This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking informatio about this agency's requirements applicable to the importation of rims for use on trucks and buses. You were particularly interested in learning the requirements for you to use the DOT symbol on your rims, and asked what technical support the agency would need to make that determination.; All rims for use on trucks and buses which are imported into or sold i the United States customs territory must satisfy Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, *Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars* (49 CFR S571.120, copy enclosed). This standard specifies two requirements applicable to these rims. The first requirement, set forth in section S5.1.1, is that the rims mounted on a new vehicle must correspond with the size tire on the vehicle. That is, the rims size must be listed as suitable for use with that tire size by the tire manufacturer. This requirement is the sole responsibility of the vehicle manufacturer, since only the vehicle manufacturer knows what size tires will be mounted on the rim.; The second requirement, set forth in section S5.2, is that the rim b marked by the rim manufacturer with five specified items of information. These are:; >>>(1) A specified designation indicating the source of the rim' published nominal dimensions,; (2) The rim's size designation and, in the case of multi-piece rims the rim type designation,; (3) The symbol DOT, which constitutes a certification by the ri manufacturer that the rim complies with the applicable requirements of the safety standards,; (4) A designation identifying the rim manufacturer by name, trademark or symbol, and; (5) The month and year in which the rim was manufactured.<<< You stated that you were interested in knowing the requirements for yo to mark your rims with the symbol 'DOT.' The United States does not use a certification process similar to the European countries, in which the manufacturer delivers the rims to be certified to a governmental entity, and that entity test the rims to determine if they can be certified as complying with the applicable standards. Instead, in the Untied States, the individual rim manufacturer must certify that its rims comply with all applicable standards. In the case of rims for use on trucks and buses, Standard No. 120 contains all the applicable requirements. The certification need not be based on actual tests, the only requirement is that the manufacturer exercise due care in making the certification. Obviously, with respect to the requirements for rims for use on trucks and buses, no testing is necessary since the standard only sets marking requirements for those rims. Once the manufacturer determines that these rims satisfy those requirements, it marks the symbol 'DOT' on the rims.; If either your company or this agency determines that the imported rim do not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120 or determine that the rims contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your company would be required to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Section 154 (a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, if the rims fail to comply with Standard No. 120 or contain a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect of noncompliance and must either:; >>>(1) repair the rim so that the defect or noncompliance is removed or; (2) replace the rim with an identical or reasonably equivalent rim tha does not have a defect or noncompliance.<<<; Whichever of these options is chosen, the rim manufacturer must bea the full expense and cannot charge the rim owner for the remedy if the rim was first purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.; Additionally, I am enclosing copies of two procedural rules which appl to all parties subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, *Manufacturer Identification*. This requires either the actual manufacturer of the rims or your company as the importer to submit your name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment you manufacture to the agency within 30 days of the date these wheels arrive in the United States.; The other regulation is 49 CFR Part 551, *Procedural Rules*. Thi regulation requires that actual manufacturer of these rims to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agency for service of process in this county. Your company may be designated as the agent, if the manufacturer so chooses. Part 551 specifies that the designation of agency must contain the following six items of information:; >>>1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and bindin 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 mailin address of your company,; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of th manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name,; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect unti withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer,; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed b the manufacturer, and that agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation, and; 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.<<< This designation must be received by this agency before these wheel and rims are imported into the United States.; If you need further information, or a clarification of any of th information set forth herein, please do not hesitate to contact me.; Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4441

"Dear Mr. Dahl: This responds to your letter concerning the tir 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";

ID: aiam5477

"Dear Ms. Dawson: This responds to your letter of August 8, 1994 regarding the test procedure in Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. I apologize for the delay in our response. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer can certify that a passenger seat complies with Standard No. 210 with the seat attached to a 1/2' steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. If the seat manufacturer can certify using 1/2' steel plate, your letter also asks whether the final stage school bus manufacturer must retest using a typical 14 gauge school bus floor to certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 210. By way of background information, each of this agency's safety standards specifies the test conditions and procedures that this agency will use to evaluate the performance of the vehicle or equipment being tested for compliance with the particular safety standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration precisely follows each of the specified test procedures and conditions when conducting its compliance testing. However, as your letter recognizes, manufacturers are not required to test their products only in the manner specified in the relevant safety standard, or even to test the product at all, as their basis for certifying that the product complies with all relevant standards. A manufacturer may choose any means of evaluating its products to determine whether the vehicle or equipment will comply with the safety standards when tested by the agency according to the procedures specified in the standard. Section S2 of Standard No. 210 states that the standard applies to 'passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.' The standard does not apply to seats as items of equipment. Therefore, it is the vehicle manufacturer rather than the seat manufacturer that is required to certify compliance with the standard. More specifically, the vehicle manufacturer must certify that the vehicle, with the seat installed, complies with Standard No. 210. Of course, one of the bases for the vehicle manufacturer's certification may be test results and other information provided by the seat manufacturer. If the agency testing shows that an apparent noncompliance exists in a vehicle or item of equipment, the manufacturer is asked to show the basis for its certification that the vehicle or equipment complies with the relevant safety standard or standards. If in fact there is a noncompliance, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties unless it can establish that it exercised 'reasonable care' in the design and manufacture of the product (through actual testing, computer simulation, engineering analysis, or other means) to ensure compliance, but nevertheless did not have reason to know that the vehicle or item of equipment did not in fact comply with the safety standards (49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(2)(A)). Standard No. 210 includes strength requirements for seat belt anchorages. The test procedure requires the specified force to be applied through body blocks at specified angles and for specified periods of time. As you state in your letter, the procedure allows the agency to replace the seat belt webbing with 'material whose breaking strength is equal to or greater than the breaking strength of the seat belt assembly.' If substitute material is used, the test procedure requires the material to 'duplicate the geometry, at the initiation of the test, of the attachment of the originally installed seat belt assembly.' This provision was included to ensure that the material was strong enough to pass the load to the anchorage during the test and, therefore, that the strength of the test anchorage rather than the seat belt was tested. Your letter asks whether a seat manufacturer may base its certification on a test performed with the seat attached to a 1/2' steel plate test fixture rather than with the seat attached to a typical 14 gauge school bus floor. This, in effect, is a request for a determination of whether a vehicle manufacturer's reliance on the fact that the seat belt anchorages did not fail when a 1/2' steel plate test fixture is used would constitute 'reasonable care' in assuring that the completed vehicle complied with the standard. This agency has long said that it is unable to judge what efforts would constitute 'reasonable care' in advance of the actual circumstances in which a noncompliance occurs. What constitutes 'reasonable care' in a particular case depends on all relevant facts, including such things as the limitations of current technology, the availability of test equipment, the size of the manufacturer, and, above all, the diligence exercised by the manufacturer. However, I would like to say that attachment of a seat or anchorage to stronger material (whether 1/2' steel plate or some other material) than the material used in the construction of the vehicle in which it will actually be installed would not appear to provide a manufacturer with information on whether or not the anchorage, when attached to the vehicle structure, will withstand the specified loads. You should also note that, while the exercise of 'reasonable care' may relieve a manufacturer of liability for civil penalties in connection with the manufacture and sale of noncomplying vehicles, it does not relieve a manufacturer of the responsibility to notify purchasers of the noncompliance and remedy the noncompliance without charge to the purchasers, if either the manufacturer or this agency determines that vehicles do not comply with all applicable safety standards. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5053

Dear Mr. Odaira: This responds to your letter asking about the sid 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;

ID: aiam0368

Dear Mr. West: This is in reply to your letter of May 10 to Francis Armstrong Director of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of Vehicle Industries, Inc. Your client wishes to import dune buggy chasses (sic), either in kit or assembled form, for sale to a distributor-dealer organization and subsequent resale by them to retail customers who will complete the final manufacture of the incomplete vehicle as a dune buggy. You have asked questions concerning compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards ('safety standards') and other regulations.; Your letter indicates that you are familiar with our two Mini-Bik Interpretations and the criteria we use in determining whether a vehicle is a 'motor vehicle' as defined in section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 'Act'). There have been no further additions to these Interpretations. We view a dune buggy as a 'motor vehicle' primarily because it is licensable for use on the public roads. Conversely all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and some categories of mini-bikes are not considered 'motor vehicles' because of State statutory prohibitions forbidding their registration for on-road use. Because a dune buggy is constructed with 'special features for occasional off-road use' it is a 'multipurpose passenger vehicle' ('MPV') under the safety standards, and must, at the time of its manufacture, comply with all safety standards applicable to MPVs. Equipping a vehicle with speed restrictive components would not affect this opinion unless the equipment rendered the completed vehicle unlicensable for on-road use.; Until January 1, 1972, the product Vehicle Industries wishes to import either in kit form or as an assemblage, is considered 'motor vehicle equipment' under the Act. It is not a chassis- cab, as you suggested, because it has no cab. Since section 102(5) of the Act includes an importer in the definition of 'manufacturer,' Vehicle Industries is considered the manufacturer of the motor vehicle equipment it imports, and responsible for compliance of that equipment with applicable safety standards.; Regulated equipment items for MPVs and corresponding safety standard are: brake hoses and brake hose assemblies (Standard No. 106), brake fluid (No. 116), glazing (No. 205), seat belt assemblies (No. 209), and wheel covers (No. 211). If the kit or assemblage contains any of these items, the item must comply upon importation, and Vehicle Industries must provide certification to the distributor-dealer that the equipment item meets the appropriate safety standard. The certification obligation is imposed by section 114 of the Act as amplified by a notice published on November 4, 1967, copy enclosed. There are no other labeling or informational obligations. The requirements of this paragraph remain in effect after January 1, 1972, to any dune buggy chassis imported in kit form.; If the chassis is imported in assembled form, on and after January 1 1972, Vehicle Industries as importer-manufacturer of an assemblage will be considered an 'incomplete vehicle manufacturer' and the assemblage an 'incomplete vehicle' as those terms are defined in 49 CFR Part 568, the regulations governing vehicles manufactured in two or more stages. I enclose a copy of Part 568 for your guidance and call your attention to S 568.4, requirements for incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Section 568.4(a)(7) will require Vehicle Industries to provide with the incomplete vehicle a list of those standards applicable to MPVs together with one of three appropriate statements for each such standard. If Vehicle Industries has provided certification prior to January 1, 1972, covering an equipment item in the assemblage, for instance brake hoses, the appropriate statement on and after January 1, 1972 would appear to be set out in S 568.4(a)(7)(i), that the vehicle when completed will comply with Standard No. 106, *Brake Hose and Brake Hose Assemblies*, if the final assembler makes no change in the brake hoses or brake hose assemblies. You ask if these regulations may be followed as a 'guideline' before January 1, 1972, because the S 568.4(a)(7)(i) statement is a representation of compliance, it is a *de facto* certification of compliance and, in my opinion, Vehicle Industries may provide such a S568.4(a)(7)(i) statement in advance of January 1, 1972, that includes a regulated equipment item, to satisfy the existing equipment certification requirement.; You have also asked if it is possible to 'retail the unit in it present form with an item of equipment on it' that doesn't comply with the safety standards. The answer is no, if that item is directly regulated by a safety standard. However, if a safety standard applies to vehicle categories only - and most of them do - then an item encompassed in that safety standard need not comply until time of final assembly. For example, Standard No. 107, *Reflecting Surfaces*, applies to MPVs and passenger cars, and not to the equipment items specified therein. Consequently, the horn ring and steering wheel assembly hub of the assemblage need not have a finish in accordance with standard No. 107, but these items must comply with reflectance requirements when the assemblage is completed as a dune buggy.; In closing, I want to call your attention to Section 110(e) of the Ac and 49 CFR S 551.45, which require that manufacturers of motor vehicles and equipment who offer their products for importation into the United States appoint a resident agent for service of process. I enclose a copy of S 551.45 with the informational requirements underlined and request that you ask the Spanish manufacturer of the dune buggy chassis to file a designation of agent with us.; If you have any further questions I shall be happy to answer them fo you.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4521

"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";

ID: 0911

K. Howard Sharp, Esq.
Arnason Law Office
P.O. Box 5296
Grand Forks, ND 58206-5296

Dear Mr. Sharp:

We have received your letter of May 12, 1995, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 on behalf of your client, NYTAF Industries. You are concerned that installation of a NYTAF lighting system on the rear of trailers might be considered to impair the effectiveness of the required rear lighting equipment within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3.

The NYTAF Auxiliary Rear Lighting System

NYTAF has developed "an auxiliary signaling system for heavy duty vehicles" which "displays a verbal message appropriate to the particular potential hazard." According to Exhibit A of your letter, a draft information brochure, the specific words displayed are: "Wide Turn", "Braking", "Wide Load", "Caution", "Help", "Backing", and "Long Load". In addition, right and left facing arrowheads indicate the direction of turning. Drivers cannot alter these messages or program the system to accept personal messages. The brochure depicts the message unit "on the rear of the trailer frame directly below the trailer body in the center putting the display panel on approximately the same horizontal plane as the tail lights and brake lights." Words are provided by light-emitting diodes (L.E.D.). According to your letter, the L.E.D. display "is somewhat more intense than existing brake lights, turn and tail lamps."

Exhibit B "Operation Summary" explains how the system operates with respect to each message, e.g., "Braking" is "activated and illuminated in conjunction with brake lights."

Applicable Requirement of Standard No. 108

Paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108 states that "No additional lamp, reflective device or other motor vehicle

equipment shall be installed [before first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for other than resale] that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by [Standard No. 108]."

Prior Interpretations of S5.1.3 Relating to Message Boards

In the past, the agency has advised that the determination of impairment is initially made by the manufacturer of the motor vehicle on which the supplementary equipment is installed, when it certifies that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, NHTSA will not question it. Thus, NHTSA's interpretations are generally cautionary in tone rather than prohibitive.

I enclose copies of two interpretations relating to message boards intended for the rear parcel shelves of passenger cars. The first is a letter of August 17, 1989, to Alan S. Eldahr ("Eldahr"). The relevant language of Eldahr is that a rear window message board "sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp." The second is a letter dated August 13, 1993, to Kenneth E. Ross ("Ross"). The Ross letter discusses the relation of message boards to the aftermarket, as well as the notification and remedy obligations which would fall upon NYTAF as a manufacturer of automotive accessory equipment.

Relationship of Eldahr to NYTAF

Eldahr indicates that there is less possibility of impairment existing if the message visible to a following driver is related to the lamp function that occurs simultaneously, as happens, for example in the NYTAF system, when stop lamp activation is accompanied by the word "Braking." We suggest that vehicle manufacturers installing the NYTAF system follow this guideline in their determinations of whether impairment exists.

NYTAF might also wish to reconsider the intensity of the L.E.D. display which you say is "more" than that of the existing rear lighting equipment, especially as it may affect reaction to the stop signal. The intensity should not be so great as to divert driver attention to the message rather than to the stop signal.

There are several areas of Exhibit B "Operation Summary" which require more specific comment. "Caution" is activated in conjunction with the hazard warning system. Standard No. 108 requires these systems to simultaneously flash all turn signal lamps, and not sequentially as Exhibit B states. Exhibit B should be corrected to reflect this if it is to be distributed publicly, as we do not understand that the NYTAF system is intended to create sequential flashing of turn signals when operated in the hazard signal mode. The sole explanation of "Help" is that it is to be activated manually. In our view, a flashing "Help" while the trailer is in motion would be more likely to impair rear lighting equipment than if it is operable only when the trailer is at rest. In addition, Exhibit B does not indicate whether the "Help" message is overridden by other messages when related lighting systems are activated.

We are unsure of the purpose of "Clearance Marker" which is operated "in conjunction with parking lights." Standard No. 108 does not require truck tractors to be equipped with parking lamps. We believe that you meant taillamps. We do not view this lamp as having an impairing effect upon the taillamps. The name of the lamp is somewhat misleading, as it would be mounted at the center of a vehicle whereas a "clearance lamp" is intended to indicate a vehicle's overall width.

Additionally, on certain trailer designs the three identification lamps are mounted around the vertical centerline in the same location in which you have stated the NYTAF system will be mounted. With respect to the close proximity of the two lighting systems, we believe that the brightness of the NYTAF device compared with that of the identification lamps could impair their ability to signal the presence of a large vehicle in the roadway ahead, the intended function of these lamps.

Finally, we note that the color red would indicate a backing function. Although trailers are not required to have backup lamps, Standard No. 108 specifies that the color white shall be used for backup lamps, and we believe that the public has come to associate an activated white lamp on the rear of a vehicle as indicating that the vehicle is in reverse gear. Your client may wish to reevaluate this function in light of possible liability concerns.

We hope that these guidelines will be helpful to NYTAF. If you have any further questions, Taylor Vinson will again be happy to answer them (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures

ref:108 d:6/7/95

ID: 007571rbm

Stephan J. Speth, Director
Vehicle Compliance & Safety Affairs
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
800 Chrysler Drive CIMS 482-00-91
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2757

Dear Mr. Speth:

This responds to your recent correspondence regarding the telltale requirement in S19.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). Specifically, you ask whether S19.2 permits a compliance alternative other than the passenger air bag telltale to prove that an the air bag is suppressed when an automatic suppression systems sensor does not detect the presence of a child restraint but the system deactivates the passenger air bag whenever the suppression system perceives that the seat is empty. While not constituting a compliance alternative, S19 does permit a device other than a telltale to indicate that the automatic suppression system has deactivated the air bag in those instances where the suppression system perceives the seat as empty.

In your letter you note that in some vehicle seat designs the car bed is too wide to be sensed by the automatic suppression systems sensor. Instead, the sensor perceives that the seat is empty and suppresses the air bag. Because the seat appears to be unoccupied, the telltale does not illuminate.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, buses and light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less starting September 1, 2003, (65 FR 30680). The issue raised in your letter was discussed in the preamble of that final rule.

S19.2.2 requires that each vehicle equipped with an automatic suppression system have at least one telltale that emits a light when the air bag is deactivated and does not emit a light when the air bag is activated, except when the passenger seat is not occupied. The telltale must meet certain requirements further detailed in S19.2.2. As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, NHTSA noted that manufacturers could choose not to illuminate the telltale when the passenger seat was unoccupied, even though the air bag has been deactivated. The final rule specifically provides manufacturers with the option of either deploying or suppressing the passenger air bag when the passenger seat is unoccupied. Suppressing the air bag may be advantageous for various reasons. First, the passenger seat is often unoccupied. Deploying an air bag in front of an empty seat would be both costly and unnecessary. Second, suppressing the air bag in all instances below a certain weight threshold could result in a more robust system that, at lower weight levels, automatically assumes any item or occupant on the seat will not benefit from a deploying air bag. NHTSA decided to allow manufacturers to design telltales that do not emit light, even though the air bag is suppressed, because such a requirement would mean that the telltale would be on more often than it was off in vehicles with these types of designs. Since the point of the telltale is to alert the driver of the vehicle that the air bag has been suppressed in the presence of a child, NHTSA was concerned that overuse of the telltale could dilute the telltales important safety message. Accordingly, the regulation specifically permits non-illumination of the telltale in the event that the seat is unoccupied.

However, NHTSA also contemplated a rare situation in which the suppression systems sensing mechanism reads the passenger seat as unoccupied even though a child could be in the seat. Such a situation should occur only when the weight of the child or test device is so slight as to prevent a sensing system from detecting the occupant. Within the context of the tests in the automatic suppression options of the advanced air bag rule, we believe such circumstance is probably limited to a car bed bridging the seat-based sensing system [1] or the three-year-old child dummy sitting on the forward edge of the seat, since in both of these instances the level of weight and/or its distribution on the seat may be sufficiently low to prevent a sensing system from detecting the occupant. Because of the possibility that this could occur under limited circumstances, we added S19.2.3, S21.2.3 and S23.2.3 which require some mechanism that definitively indicates whether the air bag is suppressed. In the preamble we stated that" [I]n order to accommodate a design where the telltale was not illuminated when the seat was empty, but still allow for compliance testing of all of the proposed child seating positions, some of which could look to a suppression system like the seat was empty, we added a requirement that the vehicle come equipped with a mechanism that would indicate under all circumstances whether the air bag was suppressed." 65 FR 30723. The mechanism need not be located in the occupant compartment unless the required telltale serves that function.

While this approach has the disadvantage of sometimes not notifying a parent or caregiver that the automatic suppression system has suppressed the passenger air bag, we balanced this concern against competing concerns that the telltale may be disregarded due to overexposure or that a sensing system may be unable to detect the presence of a child under certain real world operating conditions. In the event that a manufacturers suppression system is unable to always detect the presence of a child for whom the system is designed to suppress the air bag, this information must be included in the owners manual so that a parent or caregiver is aware that the telltale may not always illuminate in the presence of a small child. Such information is already required to be provided pursuant to S4.5.1(f)(2)(iv) of the standard.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.3/8/04





---

[1] The car bed is unique among child restraints because it is installed sideways across the seat, it is designed to accommodate only very small infants, and the seat belt is not cinched down when testing the suppression system. This combination of factors could reasonably result in the car bed placing virtually no weight on a seat-integrated sensing system.

ID: 17440.drn

Jörg S. Mager, Vehicle Policy Engineer
Safer Vehicles, Roads & Rail
Vehicle Policy
Land Transport Safety Authority of New Zealand
Level 4
7-27 Waterloo Quay
P. O. Box 2840
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

Dear Mr. Mager:

This responds to your request for information on U. S. requirements for aftermarket tinting of motor vehicle glazing by means of self-adhesive films. You posed several questions which are answered below:

The first question concerned the "current legal position" of motor vehicle tinting in the United States. You also wished to know what Federal policy is with respect to tinting.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 USC 30111 to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to all new motor vehicles at time of first sale to the consumer. Standard No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR Part 571.205) specifies performance requirements for glazing, and includes a requirement that all windows "requisite for driving visibility" (including all windows in passenger cars) have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The primary purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. In establishing the 70 percent light transmittance requirement for motor vehicle glazing areas requisite for driving visibility, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) determined that level met the need for motor vehicle safety.

Although Standard No. 205 itself does not apply after the first sale of the vehicle, 49 USC 30122(b) prohibits a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "mak[ing] inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." The effect of Section 30122(b) is to impose limits on the tinting practices of motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses. These businesses may not install tinting on new or used vehicles that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard No. 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent.

Note however, that NHTSA's regulations do not apply to certain parties or actions. Vehicle owners are not restricted by Federal law in the modifications that they make to their vehicles, and could tint their windows as dark as they like without violating Federal law (although NHTSA does not encourage tinting darker than Standard No. 205 allows). NHTSA recommends that vehicle owners not degrade the safety features of the glazing in their motor vehicles by tinting the glazing darker than Standard No. 205 allows. Federal law also does not regulate the operation or use of vehicles, which is under the jurisdiction of the individual States.

Under certain circumstances, State laws would be preempted by Federal law. 49 USC 30103(b)(1) states "[w]hen a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect . . . a State . . . may prescribe . . . a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance . . . only if the standard is identical to the [federal standard]." A State law would be preempted by the Federal law to the extent that it regulates the same aspect of performance in a different way, or permits something prohibited by the Federal regulations (such as modifications by vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses that would violate Standard No. 205). A State law would also be preempted if it purported to allow the manufacture and sale of glazing materials or new vehicles containing glazing material that did not meet the specifications of Standard No. 205.

State requirements applicable to the registration and inspection of motor vehicles after the first sale to a consumer are not preempted merely because they are not identical to the Federal safety standards, as long as the state requirements do not interfere with the achievement of the purposes of Federal law. Therefore, a State could permit the registration of a vehicle which had been altered by its owner by the addition of window tinting, even when the tinting reduces the light transmittance below the Federal standard.

You asked about the outcome of the "Blue Skies" case in the Middle District of Florida.

In a Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking of January 22, 1992 (57 FR 2496) (copy enclosed), NHTSA noted the following regarding the "Blue Skies" case:

One Florida District Court has held that Standard No. 205 is not currently enforceable against window tinting businesses because the agency did not issue a "new and revised Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard" pursuant to the second sentence of Section 103(h) of the Safety Act. United States v. Blue Skies Projects, Inc., No. 90-253-CIV-ORL-18 (M.D. Fla., August 13, 1991) ... NHTSA strongly believes that the court's opinion was erroneous and that the current standard is valid and enforceable. (57 FR at 2507)

Please note that the U.S. government did not appeal the decision of the Florida District Court. Also, NHTSA has not yet issued a final determination regarding the January 22, 1992 Federal Register notice.

You asked if NHTSA has a list of the "legal requirements with respect to the minimum visible light transmittance allowed by the states for windows of motor vehicles."

Since NHTSA does not maintain such a list, we cannot provide it to you.

You also asked if "the requirements in terms of permissible minium visible light transmittance spelled out in FMVSS 205 and ANSI/SAE Z26.1:1995 will be adopted on a state level in the foreseeable future."

NHTSA has no information on any planned state actions in this area. As described in our answer to the first set of questions, depending on the conduct or aspects of performance it seeks to regulate, a State law reducing the level of window light transmittance below the Federal standard may be preempted by Federal law.

I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's March 1991 "Report to Congress on Tinting of Motor Vehicle Windows." Among other matters, the report discusses: (1) the current performance requirements in the Federal standard concerning window light transmittance, (2) how vehicles on the road at the time the report was written compare to the standard's requirements, (3) the rules and regulation other countries have in effect (at the time the report was written) on light transmittance through windows, (4) research on the effect of various tinting levels on depth perception, night vision, or other faculties that affect safety.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:205
d.6/22/98

ID: 1982-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/05/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cariben, Inc. -- Ernesto Rodriguez

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 22, 1981, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device. The device works by blocking the brakes and electric circuits to the motor. In trucks, the clutch is also blocked. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft devices that work by preventing release of the brakes. However, since installation of your device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of your device, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of the device would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:

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

Standard No. 105 includes various requirements that might be affected by installation of your device. We are not able to determine from the drawings included with your letter whether compliance with the standard would be affected. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard. Your letter states that when your device is not in use, the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever. In addition to requirements specifically concerning stopping performance, the standard also includes requirements related to such things as a split system and the ability to withstand a series of spike stops, which might be affected by your device.

While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particular device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.

Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.

SINCERELY,

Sept. 22, 1981

U.S. Dept. of Transportation Nat. Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Att: Chief Counsel Office

Gentlemen:

Cariben Inc. restpectfully submit for your consideration and judgement the following request and corresponding data:

I- WE have the oportunity to import from Europe to be marqueted in our country an unique and efficient Antitheft Devise for Cars, Trucks and Containers or Vans identified as: U.F.006- 00I2 and 00I2 I. R; Patented by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Dossier #5320.U2.12US.I

2-The most important and vital feature of the Devises are that once you turned the key on, the brackes and all elecric circuits to the motor are blocked except the one that goes to the horn that will blow if somebody tampered with the vehicle. In the trucks also the clutch is blocked, and in the containers or Vans the brackes are blocked mecanically and hidraulically.

3- The Antitheft works in conjunction with the master cylinder controling the flux of the bracke fluid to the brackes and the electricity going from the battery to the ignition and to the coil.

4- When the Antitheft is not in use then the vehicle works normally without any interference whatsoever.

We respectfully beg your office to determine if this Anti-thefts so badly needed in our country, as all of us knows, violates the already standards established by your office for articles of this nature. We have already make contact with Sea-Land, Navieras de Puerto Rico, Sears, T.S.S. and others and we need your ruling in this case.

Thanks in advance for your kind attention to this letter.

We remain,

By: Ernesto Rodriguez

(Enclosure Omitted.)