ID: aiam0216

Dear Mr. Springer: Your letter of February 13 indicates that your understanding of th regulatory situation is correct. There is no prohibition in the motor vehicle safety standards against the sale of a non-conforming attachment bolt as a separate item. All that Standard No. 209 requires is that the seat belt assemblies which your firm supplies must be accompanied by conforming attachment bolts.; Before you act on your understanding, however, you should give specia consideration to the consequences of any widespread use of attachment bolts which do not conform to the strength and other requirements of the standard. If, for example, we found that vehicle owners were being induced to secure their aftermarket seat belts to anchorages by the use of attachment bolts that do not provide adequate strength in crash situations, we would be compelled to consider whether the public interest would require rulemaking action aimed at preventing the marketing of such understrength bolts. We appreciate your desire not to evade the regulations or take advantage of what may be considered a loophole in them.; Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Assistant Chief Counsel fo Regulations;

ID: aiam4515

Dear Ms. Black: Thank you for your letter of April l4, l988, providin further information about the Jaguar headlamp levelling system discussed in your letters of June and October l987 to which I responded on February 1, 1988. We support your efforts to call the driver's attention to the fact that the system does not automatically return to the 'zero' position from either of the two adjustment positions when those loading conditions no longer exist. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: nht81-3.33

DATE: 11/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Semperit of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your telephone inquiry of October 13, 1981, asking whether tire tread labels required under the. Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards must continue to be affixed to tires once applicable UTQG grades are added to sidewall molds for the tires. The UTQG regulation contemplates that tire grading information will be made available to consumers simultaneously through a variety of means, including tread labels (49 CFR @ 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B)), sidewall molding (49 CFR @ 575.104 (d)(1)(i)(A)), and leaflets available at the point of sale (49 CFR @ 575.104(d)(1)(ii)). While the regulation was recently amended to permit tire grades to be molded on the tire sidewall at any time up to six months after introduction of a new tire line (46 FR 41514, August 17, 1981), this change in no way affected the obligation imposed by @ 575.104(d)(1)(i)(B) that UTQG tread labels be affixed to all replacement tires to which the regulation applies. Thus, once the sidewall molding requirement takes effect for a line of tires, the regulation requires that UTQG information be displayed on the tires both by means of sidewall molding and by labels attached to the tread surface.

ID: nht71-2.22

DATE: 03/29/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: PETITION TO AMEND STANDARD NO. 103

This is in response to your petition of February 24 to Douglas Toms for a amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (35 F.R. 16640).

You petitioned for an amendment of S4.6(b) that would allow use of a non-automatic means for flashing headlamps. Standard No. 103 does not contain requirements for, or prohibitions against, flashing headlamps non-automatically, and therefore installation of such devices is at the option of the manufacturer.

You commented that S4.6(b) appears to require simultaneous flashing of headlamps and side marker lamps if an automatic means of flashing is provided. Your interpretation is incorrect; either headlamps or side marker lamps, or both, may be flashed by automatic means.

You also petitioned for an amendment of S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7 on the basis of a conflict in the dates of applicability of the effective date of the sections. Your petition on this point is moot; this ambiquity was resolved is an amendment to Standard No. 108 published on February 3, 1971 (36 F.R. 1896). I enclose a copy for your information.

ID: nht88-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/13/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Busch Transportation Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dan Moore Engineer - Car Design Busch Transportation Services 5901 State Route 15 Belleville, IL. 62223

Dear Mr. Moore:

This responds to your letter requesting information concerning a step-van design. You indicated that you propose to attach a step-van to a truck chassis with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds, and sought information about applicable Federal requirements. Specifically, you asked which of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the finished step-van, what other National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regulations would apply, and which of the safety standards require a ctual testing of a prototype. While I apologize for the delay in responding to your requests, I hope that the following information is useful to you.

First, by way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Th e Safety Act specifies that it is the manufacturer itself that must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacturer. Because of this statutory requirement, this agency does not "approv e" any manufacturer's vehicles or offer assurances that the vehicles comply with the safety standards.

In certifying compliance with the safety standards, the manufacturer must do so consistent with the agency's definitions of motor vehicle types, found in S571.3 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. From the information in your letter, it appea rs that your vehicle would be classified as a truck. (Our regulations define "truck" as a "motor vehicle, with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment.") I am enclosing with this letter a table which lists each standard that applies to each basic vehicle type. From this list you should be able to determine which safety standards apply to your vehicle. In addition, I am enclosing a fact sheet for new manufacturers, which describes all pertinent areas of regulation of motor vehicles, as well as a booklet for complying with regulations on importing motor vehicles. While you are not importing vehicles, the booklet does contain summary statements for each of the standards, which may be helpful to you.

You indicate that you will be attaching a step-van to a truck chassis, and thus request information concerning your responsibilities as a final stage manufacturer. The agency's requirements for final stage manufacturers are set forth in Parts 567 and 568 of the agency's regulations. I have enclosed copies of both of these regulations. Briefly, these requirements can be explained as follows.

Under S568.6, a final stage manufacturer must complete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to all safety standards for the applicable vehicle type (in this case we presume a truck) in effect on a date no earlier than the manufacturing date of t he incomplete vehicle (in this case, the chassis), and no later than the date of completion of the final-stage manufacture (in this case, the attachment of the body to the chassis). In addition, you must affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordan ce with the certification requirements set forth in S567.5. Requirements For Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

To reduce the certification burdens on final stage manufacturers, NHTSA has imposed some regulatory requirements on incomplete vehicle manufacturers. Under S568.4, an incomplete vehicle manufacturer must list by number each standard that applies to its v ehicle at the time of manufacture, and make one of the following three statements for each standard:

1. That the vehicle when completed will conform to the standard if no alterations are made in identified components:

2. That if the vehicle is completed under specific conditions of final manufacture set out in the compliance document, it will conform to the standard: or

3. That conformity with the standards is not substantially affected by the incomplete vehicle design, and the incomplete vehicle manufacturer makes no representation as to conformity with the standard. (49 CFR 568.4(a)(7))

I would like to point out one circumstance that may affect your certification as final stage manufacturer and reliance on representations made by the incomplete manufacturer. It is possible that, in the course of your attaching the step-van to the truck chassis, you will change the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) of the vehicle. If this occurs, you much certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards at this new GVWR. Some of the standards which are likely to be affected by an increase in the GVWR are Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems, and Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars.

With regard to your question about actual field testing, the agency does not require that a manufacturer's certification be based on a specified number of tests, or any tests at all. Instead, we only require that the manufacturer's certification be made with the exercise of due care, as specified in the Safety Act. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance to determine what data, test results, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its vehicles comply with the saf ety standards.

I hope the information in this letter is useful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 18, 1987

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

PETITION: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Gentleman:

We here at Busch Transportation Services (BTS) are considering entering our design for a step-van into the market. Although we are a part of the Transportation Group of Anheuser-Busch, we are very new to the industry of new trailer/truck body design and manufacture.

In accordance with CFR 49, Part 552, we respectfully request your interpretation regarding the applicability of CFR 49, Part 571, "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" to our proposed design. The step-van we propose would be for attachment (by BTS) to truck chassis of 10,000 pound GVWR. Specifically, we would like to know which of the FMVSS's would apply to us as the final stage manufacturer, as well as any other CFR 49 requirements we would have to meet.

Additionally, we would like to know which of the applicable FMVSS's would require actual field testing to be performed on a prototype of our proposed design. We would appreciate guidelines as to whom would be able to perform such tests for us.

We want to work with your Administration so that we will have a fully NHTSA-certified vehicle and will look forward to finding out exactly how to do so. Please call if we can provide any other information.

Sincerely,

Dan Moore Engineer-Car Design

ID: nht79-3.10

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Scott Lyford, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office when you telephoned on June 4, 1979, on behalf of your clients who intend to manufacture auxiliary gasoline tanks, to sell the tanks as part of a universal kit with all parts necessary for installation, and in some instances to install the tanks in vehicles. You inquired as to the meaning of the word "integrity" as used in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301-75 (49 CFR 571.301-75) and the applicability of the standard to your clients' proposed activities. You also inquired as to the meaning of the phrase "render inoperative" as used in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act) and its applicability to your clients' proposed activities.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974, (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, is a vehicle standard that applies to vehicles which use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. and which are (1) passenger cars or (2) multi-purpose 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. The word "integrity" as used in FMVSS 301-75, refers to the fact that compliance with the standard requires that fuel spillage from a vehicle subjected to a fixed or moving barrier crash not exceed the limits established by FMVSS 301-75, S5.5 and S5.6.

Since FMVSS 301-75 is only a vehicle standard and does not specify performance standards for fuel tanks, it does not directly apply to your clients' proposed manufacturing activities. However, as will be discussed later, it does apply when an auxiliary fuel tank is installed in a vehicle by either the manufacturer of the tank or other persons specified in the Act.

Despite the lack of a specifically applicable safety standard auxiliary fuel tanks must be designed and manufactured for safety. The defect responsibility provisions of the Act (sections 151-153) authorize the Secretary of Transportation (or his delegate the NHTSA Administrator) to make determinations as to whether items of motor vehicle equipment contain defects which relate to motor vehicle safety. If he finds that a safety-related defect exists, he may compel the manufacturer of the equipment to remedy the defect and notify purchasers of the hazard. In addition, these provisions also require that a manufacturer who discovers a safety-related defect in his product notify the Secretary of Transportation (or NHTSA Administrator) and then provide notification and remedy to purchasers. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(A) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Since auxiliary gasoline tanks are items of motor vehicle equipment, as defined in section 102(4) of the Act, your clients as manufacturers of such equipment would be required to provide notification and remedy should their auxiliary gasoline tanks prove to be defective in design, materials, manufacture, or performance. (See 49 CFR Part 597).

FMVSS 301-75 would apply to your client's installation of auxiliary fuel tanks in new motor vehicles. Under section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicles must comply with the safety standards applicable to them until they are first purchased by someone, for purposes other than resale. The purchase is completed when the vehicle is delivered to the ultimate consumer. Any person who, prior to the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, alters that vehicle by making more than minor finishing operations, is required by 49 CFR 567.7 to recertify the entire vehicle as complying with all safety standards applicable to it. Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he or she could establish that he or she did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he or she did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (Section 108(b)(2) of the Act).

Under these provisions, your clients would be considered to be alterers if they installed an auxiliary fuel tank in a new vehicle prior to the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, and they would be required to recertify the vehicle as complying with applicable safety standards, including FMVSS 301-75. With respect to FMVSS 301-75, the effect of the alterer provisions is that not only must the original gasoline fuel system meet the performance requirements encompassed by the standard but that any auxiliary tank added by an alterer must meet them also.

It should also be noted that the defect responsibilities imposed by Section 151 et seq., mentioned earlier with respect to the defective design, composition, manufacture or performance of auxiliary tanks also apply to safety defects in the installation of such tanks in new vehicles. Installation defects include defects in the method and location of installation. Acting, as both manufacturers and installers of the tanks, your clients would be subject to responsibilities for safety defects stemming from both the production and installation of the tanks.

FMVSS 301-75 as well as the "render inoperative" provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would apply to your clients' activities in installing auxiliary gasoline tanks in used vehicles. After the first sale of a vehicle for purposes other than resale, tampering with the vehicle (referred to here as a used vehicle) is limited by section 108(a)(2)(A). Specifically, the section 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 ....

The words "render inoperative," in the context of section 108(a)(2)(A), in essence prohibit certain listed entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting or reducing performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable safety standards.

A listed person or entity found to have violated section 108(a)(2)(A) would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Should your clients begin producing auxiliary gasoline tanks they would be encompassed by the term "manufacturer" as that term is used in section 108(a)(2)(A) and defined in section 102(5) of the Act. Therefore, if your clients added an auxiliary gasoline tank to a used vehicle manufactured in accordance with FMVSS 301-75 and in the process knowingly reduced the performance of the fuel system originally installed in the motor vehicle, they would be deemed in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). Such reduction of performance could occur for example, if the gasoline from the original system (a fuel system includes the filler pipe, tank, gasoline lines, fuel pump, carburetor, and engine) could be leaked through a rupture in the auxiliary tank and fuel lines, or if the design materials, construction, installation or location of the auxiliary tank and fuel lines made them more susceptible to rupture than the original fuel system.

I hope you will find this response helpful.

ID: nht94-8.28

DATE: February 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Donald W. Vierimaa -- Vice President - Engineering, Truck Trailer Manufacturing Association

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/93 from Donald W. Vierimaa to John Womack (OCC-9050)

TEXT:

We have reviewed your letter of September 2, 1993, asking for three interpretations of S5.7 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, the provisions that relate to heavy trailer conspicuity.

You have set forth the metric dimensions specified in S5.7, together with corresponding values under the headings "English (actual)," and "English (nominal)." The latter is a rounding off of the values of "English (actual)." Your first question is whether you may consider the English (nominal) dimensions equivalent for the purpose of compliance with Standard No. 108.

We assume that you would like to provide measurements in the conventional manner to your members who may not be familiar with the metric system, as a means of assisting them to comply with the conspicuity requirements that become effective December 1, 1993. However, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not expressed in equivalents, but in precise values, whether metric or conventional, and there can be no rounded "equivalences" for purposes of compliance with Standard No. 108. SAE J1322 JUN85 "Preferred Conversion Values for Dimensions in Lighting" which you reference has not been incorporated into Standard No. 108. In implementation of Departmental and national policy, NHTSA has begun to specify the requirements of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards using metric system values, and manufacturers are expected to learn and to comply with them.

We would also like to correct a misimpression indicated in your letter. You have placed a single asterisk by certain metric values reflecting your assumption that these are minimum values. This is incorrect; the standard expresses these values as fixed values rather than minimum ones. However, you are correct in your identification as minimum of those values that are not designated by an asterisk.

Your second question concerns the location of rear and side sheeting. You point out that cargo tank trailers may have a "vertical surface" only at their "belt line" which may be as high as 2.3 m above the ground. You ask whether retroreflective sheeting may be located higher that 1.25 m if there is no vertical surface lower than this height "without installing structure just for the sheeting." As adopted, Standard No. 108 specified a mounting height as close as practicable to 1.25 m. However, in a notice published on October 6, 1993, NHTSA amended the requirement to "as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface." The practicability qualification allows manufacturers to choose a location for conspicuity treatment that is outside the specified

range to avoid body modifications that might otherwise be required to mount the material within the specified range.

The manufacturers of conspicuity material certify its performance as mounted on a vehicle in a vertical plane. Trailer manufacturers are expected to mount the material in a vertical plane or as close to a vertical plane as the trailer shape offers. In the case of your hypothetical tank trailer without a suitable vertical surface below the belt line of the tank, reflective material at the belt line, whether 2.3 m or higher, would be considered to have been mounted as close as practicable to the upper specification of the height range (1.525 m). As NHTSA observed when it adopted the original mounting height specification with its practicability provision, flexibility in the vertical location of conspicuity material is necessary for compliance of some tank trailers. However, it should not be overlooked that other types of tank trailers may have vertical surfaces on the frames, fenders, or other equipment well suited for conspicuity material.

Your third question presents five Figures and asks with respect to each whether the vertical and horizontal sheeting for the upper right and left contours, as specified by S5.7.1.4.1(b), may be of the dimensions and locations shown. This section requires application of two pairs of white strips of sheeting, each pair consisting of strips 300 mm long, applied "vertically" and "horizontally" to the contours "as close to the top of the trailer and as far apart as practicable." With respect to Figures 1 and 2 (van trailers), we shall assume that the horizontal strips are mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable. Figure 1 depicts two separate strips at right angles to each other, each 300 mm in length. This design is not in accordance with Standard No. 108. The side strip does not appear mounted as close to the top of the trailer as practicable, and the top strips do not appear to be mounted as far apart as practicable. While the presence of door hinges may necessitate designs similar to Figure 1, this design, as drawn on an unobstructed surface, does not comply. To effect compliance, either the side strips should be moved upwards, or the top strips should be moved closer to the outside corners.

Figure 2 depicts two strips joined at the corners to make an inverted "L." Each leg of the "L" is 300 mm in length when measured from the outside, top to bottom, or side to side. This configuration is in accordance with S5.7.1.4.1(b).

Figures 3 and 4 present alternative conspicuity treatments for liquid tank trailers where the body is curved rather than rectangular. In Figure 3, two strips 30 mm in length intersect at an angle greater than 90 degrees. In Figure 4, a curved strip 600 mm in length follows the contour of the body. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(b) of Standard No. 108 requires marking the upper outer contours of the body with strips "applied horizontally and vertically to the right and left upper contours of the body ...." However, the rear contours of a tank body are rounded rather than vertical and horizontal. In view of this fact, the agency accepts the treatment shown in your Figure 3 as meeting the requirement for horizontal and vertical application. The design of Figure 4 does not differ in any significant way, and we consider that it is equivalent.

Finally, Figure 5 depicts a dry bulk trailer with a 300 mm strip centered horizontally at the top of a round body, and two strips of the same length placed lower, at an angle slightly off of vertical, but far from the edges of the body contour. We understand that the body of the trailer tapers to a blunt end represented by the circle upon which the horizontal conspicuity treatment is laced. As the approximately vertical strips cannot be placed on the tapering trailer body, they should be located as far apart as practicable, and the depicted location appears to represent that placement. Similarly, if two horizontal strips cannot be placed on the trailer body, NHTSA will not question the compliance of the vehicle based on the provision of a single, center strip of retroreflective material.

ID: 1984-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Deane; Snowdon; Shutler & Gherardi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John Russell Deane III Deane, Snowdon, Shutler & Gherardi 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Deane:

This responds to your letter of May 15, 1984, to Stephen Oesch of my staff, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. The following discussion addresses the agency's interpretation of the standard that you discussed with Mr. Oesch and the question concerning the luminous transmittance requirements in passenger cars that you raised in your letter.

You are correct that the standard regulates the glazing installed in motor vehicles and that the agency has stated that window coverings, such as solar tinting film, are not glazing for the purposes of the standard. You are also correct that the anti-tampering requirement of section 108(a)(2)(A) preclude the installation of window coverings by certain individuals, if the installation would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with Standard No. 205. Finally, you are correct that the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205 do not apply to windows behind the driver in buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) and trucks when those windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

The issue of whether Standard No. 205 would preempt a State standard on window covering must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As a general matter, Standard No. 205 would not preempt State laws on window covering unless those laws appear to authorize the installation of window coverings on a new vehicle prior to its first sale and the installation of the window covering would mean that the vehicle's glazing no longer complies with Standard. No. 205. As to the abrasion resistance requirements of Standard No. 205, while you are correct that they do not directly apply to window coverings, the installation of a window covering on a vehicle may render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard.

Finally, you requested information concerning the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. Subsequent to your meeting, Mr. Oesch provided you with the agency's interpretation letter of February 15, 1974, concerning windows in a passenger car which are requisite for driving visibility. The reason that the agency distinguishes between the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars and those for buses, MPV's and trucks is due to the differing rearward visibility requirements set in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors for those different types of vehicles. Standard No. 111 requires all passenger cars to have an inside rearview mirror, so it is necessary to ensure that the rear window of a passenger car has sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to use the rearview mirror. Unlike MPV's, buses and trucks, passenger cars are not required to have an outside rearview mirror on the passenger's side. Therefore, the agency believes that the side windows to the rear of the driver of a passenger car must have sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to have an adequate view through those windows to the rear of the car.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Stephen L. Oesch Chief Counsel General Law Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on Thursday, May 10, 1984 to discuss certain interpretations of FMVSS 205. As I mentioned during our meeting, I represent the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) which numbers among its members most of the manufacturers of various decorative window coverings. We have for some time attempted to develop objectively stated standards for use by the states in their regulation of these products. One of our manufacturer's major problems is the lack of uniformity in the state standards. We were successful in having the VESC adopt a model standard and have attempted to have that standard enacted by law or regulation in as many states as possible.

We are concerned that certain problems regarding state standards may have been exacerbated by certain correspondence between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and various state authorities. Specifically, this correspondence includes the letters from Hugh Oates to Paul J. Phillipson, dated February 17, 1983 and from Frank Berndt to B. E. Diehl, dated December 20, 1983.

While the message conveyed by those letters may have been misinterpreted, I believe that SEMA and your office agree on the current interpretation of FMVSS 205, except in one regard. First, FMVSS 205 covers within its scope window glazing which is installed in various vehicles and does not regulate the use of various window coverings. It is clear, however, that the antitampering provisions of the law would preclude the use of various materials by certain individuals, if the use of such materials would render inoperative the safety standard in question. Second, in its present form, FMVSS 205 is not preemptive of state laws which seek to deal with window covering products since the federal standard does not deal with such products. Third, FMVSS 205 does not impose the abrasion test on window covering materials. This is the case inasmuch as the standard does not apply to such window covering materials, and even if it did, the abrasion test is inapplicable to window glazing utilized in locations where there is no requirement for luminous transmittance. Our final point of agreement is that FMVSS 205 does not require luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver in multipurpose passenger vehicles vans and trucks where such windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

It would appear that the only area where we do not yet agree is with regard to the requirement for luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver of a passenger car. I believe that, as is the case with MPV, there is no requirement for luminous transmittance unless the window is requisite for driving visibility.

During our meeting I had requested that you provide me with copies of various documents where the policy of NHTSA had been expressed on the issue of luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. I had also requested any materials that you might have which discuss the rationale for a distinction between passenger cars and MPVs. Further, if it is possible to delineate any concerns which might warrant a distinction between MPV and passenger cars, it would be very helpful to us in finding ways of dealing with such concerns.

After we have had an opportunity to review the materials which you are providing us, I would very much appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the issue with you further. In the meantime, if there are any materials which we have which might be of use to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you again for meeting with me and for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN RUSSELL DEANE III cc: Calvin Hill Roger Greene Chuck Blum Bob Burch

ID: aiam5341

Dear Mr. Montgomery: This replies to your letter of March 9, 1994, t the Regional Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). You have questions regarding the trailer conspicuity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, a regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. You have enclosed photos of two rear end treatments. In Photo; 1, the conspicuity treatment is applied 'on the doors at a height of 5 inches which is approximately 6 inches higher than the 1.25 meters (50 inches) dictated.' The conspicuity treatment appears to extend the full width of the vehicle. In Photo; 2, the reflectorized material is located '4 inches less than the 1.2 meters (50 inches) dictated.' In this configuration, the conspicuity treatment has been relocated to a position between the rear lighting units so that it no longer extends the full width of the vehicle. Photo; 1 represents the trailer as received from the manufacturer. Photo 2 represents the modifications you wish to make to the trailer. Yo have asked whether the configuration depicted in Photo; "2 complies with Standard No. 108. The manufacturer of the trailer ha certified its compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the conspicuity treatment location requirements of Standard No. 108. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) specifies that the material be located 'as close to the extreme edges as practicable.' The relocation you contemplate would place the material where it is not as close to the extreme edges of the trailer as it originally was. This would create a noncompliance with Standard No. 108. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(20(A)) (the Act) prohibits any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The prohibition, however, does not apply to the vehicle owner. This means that Leprino Foods and its employees are not themselves prohibited by the Act from modifying your trailers to the configuration depicted in Photo"; 2. It does mean that a 'manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or moto vehicle repair business' cannot perform this work for you. We surmise that your trailers are subject to the jurisdiction of the FHWA when they are operated in interstate commerce. FHWA regulations require your trailer to be equipped to conform to Standard No. 108. Thus, if you modify your trailers so that they no longer conform to the rear location requirements of Standard No. 108, you would be in violation of the regulations of that agency. This is to advise you that the FHWA has concurred in this interpretation to you. Either mounting height location is permitted. Originally, Standard No. 108 did specify a mounting height for rear conspicuity material that was 'as close as practicable to 1.25 meters above the road surface.' However, the agency amended this paragraph on October 6, 1993, to adopt a height range of 'as close as practicable to not less than 375 mm and not more than 1525 mm above the road surface.' This is the equivalent of 15 to 60 inches above the road surface. Therefore, the mounting heights of 46 and 56 inches shown in your two photos is in accordance with the revised requirement. Finally, we note your comment that the diagram in the Federal Register 'failed to consider the bumper bar area and the light assemblies that are actually on a van.' The requirements that must be adhered to are found in the text of Standard No. 108, Figure 30 is meant only as a general guide as to the placement of the conspicuity material. Obviously, it cannot depict the exact rear configuration of all van trailers. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel;

ID: nht74-3.30

DATE: 08/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: We confirm your interpretation of S5.3.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105-75, expressed in your letter of August 2, 1974, to Dr. Gregory, that the engine "start" position may be used as a check position for indicator lamp function.

The phrase in S5.3.2 "when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between 'on' ('run') and 'start'" is intended to include both "on" and "start" as well as any position between.

Application of the parking brake as an indicator check will no longer be permitted for vehicles manufactured after the effective date of Standard 105-75.