ID: 1985-02.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Beatrice Ho -- Honest International Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Kevin C. Graves

TEXT:

Ms. Beatrice Ho Honest International Corp. P.O. Box 851391 Richardson, TX 75081

This responds to your letter to Mr. Radovich of this agency's Rulemaking Division, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you asked if a child restraint which has been certified as meeting the Japanese safety standard could automatically be considered as complying with Standard No. 213, and, if not, asked for the names and addresses of the U.S. testing laboratories.

There is no requirement that the measures, such as testing, taken by a manufacturer to demonstrate it exercised due care to produce an item of equipment in accordance with Standard No. 213, be performed in this country. If a foreign standard is essentially identical to Standard No. 213, then it may be that the efforts made by a manufacturer in a foreign country to show compliance with that country's standard could form the basis for the manufacturer's certification that its product complied with Standard No. 213. The adequacy of those efforts would depend on a variety of factors, including the degree of similarity between the standards and the resources available to the manufacturer to determine its compliance. For additional information relating to your question, please see the enclosed letter written last year to an Austrian child restraint manufacturer. That letter explains in detail the procedures for certifying compliance with Standard No. 213.

For purposes of enforcing Standard No. 213, this agency conducts spot checks of child restraints after they have been certified by the manufacturer as complying with the standard, by purchasing child restraints and testing them in accordance with the procedures specified in the standard.

If the child restraints pass those tests, no further steps are taken. If a child restraint fails the tests and is determined not to comply with Standard No. 213 or if it is determined that the child restraint contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the child restraint is required to remedy the problem. Section 154(a)(2)(B) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(B)) specifies that, in the case of a child restraint which fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either:

(1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed or

(2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense and cannot charge the child restraint owner for the remedy.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at this address.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

[See 8/17/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Kevin C. Graves]

HONEST INTERNATIONAL CORP.

Ref. 58114

February 27, 1985

Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Child Restraint Seat

Dear Mr. Radovich:

We are trying to import Japanese Child Restraint Seat to the local market. The product has been tested at Japanese laboratory and met the Japanese Vehicle Safety Standards.

Our questions are:

1. May a Japanese Test report or certificate duly notarized at the U.S. Embassy in Japan be served as approval of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards?

2. If another U.S. laboratory test is required, please advice us the name and locations of such laboratories.

Thank you very much for your attention, and looking forward to hear from you soon.

Very truly yours, Honest International Corp. Beatrice Ho BH:cy

ID: nht87-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Clarence M. Ditlow III, Esq. Center for Auto Safety 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 410 Washington, DC 20009

Dear Mr. Ditlow:

Thank you for your letter concerning how the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act apply to the displaying, test driving, and delivery of a passenger car with an automatic safety belt. The agency has rece ntly issued the enclosed Federal Register notice that addresses the issues you raised.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Erika Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

With the 1987 model year less than a month away, automobile dealers will soon be selling large numbers of vehicles equipped with passive restraints. Unfortunately, while the passive restraint requirement has the potential for saving thousands 0f lives an nually, these benefits will not be realized if dealerships mock the standard by disconnecting the automatic seat belts offered by some manufacturers.

The cumbersome and easily detached automatic belts offered by General Motors, for example, will actually encourage disconnection by dealerships and consumers. The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor convenientl y rolling the loose belt up into the retractor. GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed.

Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given that other auto companies will have far superior belts on their 1987 models. Ford, Nissan and Toyota will all use motorized passive belts with demonstrat ed consumer acceptance. For the past ten model years, Volkswagon has sold an automatic belt that is so easy to use consumers don't disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard ride r" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly rendering inoperative, in whole or in part, any device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safe ty standard." The NHTSA has previously ruled this section does not prohibit dealers from disconnecting an, automatic seat belt to demonstrate the emergency release mechanism. However, this section clearly prohibits dealers from disconnecting and disablin g automatic seat belts in all other circumstances. If they do so, they are liable for a $1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act.

The temporary disconnection of an automatic belts for the purpose of demonstrating the emergency release mechanism is a separate and unique activity easily distinguishable from having display models with disconnected automatic belts sitting on the showro om floor. The same is true of allowing vehicles to be test driven with disconnected belts, or delivered to purchasers with detached automatic belts. These practices have no safety benefit and serve only to encourage consumer disuse or automatic belts, th ereby undercutting their unique contribution of automatic belts to occupant protection.

Accordingly, the Center for Auto Safety petitions the NHTSA to issue, prior "to the beginning or the 1987 model year, an interpretive legal opinion of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act stating it is illegal for dealers to: (1) display 1987 models with disconnected automatic seat belts on the showroom floor or on the dealership lot, (2) conduct test drives with automatic belts disconnected, and (3) deliver 1987 models at the time of purchase with automatic belts disconnecte d. NHTSA is also requested to rule that dealers who so violate Section 108 by displaying and selling new cars with automatic belts disconnected are subject to a 81,000 per vehicle fine.

Sincerely, Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth

ID: nht87-2.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/17/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager MMC Services Inc. 3000 Town Center Suite 1960 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Takechi:

This is in reply to your letter of April 24, 1987, with reference to the legality of a proposed concealed headlamp design. As we understand the proposed design, the headlamp could be used in the "concealed" position as a forward warning (which you believ e "is similar to the daytime running light principle" and "is useful to avoid accidents") and in the unconcealed position as a headlamp to provide visibility of the roadway ahead. A portion of the vehicle body in front of the concealed headlamp would be clear, allowing the beam from the concealed lamp to shine through it. The steady burning forward warning signal would be given by pulling a spring-loaded switch. Releasing the switch would turn off the headlamp. Thus, the concealed headlamp would not, as a practical matter, be used for providing visibility of the roadway ahead but as an alternative to the vehicle's audible warning device, the horn. The proposed use would be a visual "horn." Finally, you state that the beam pattern and intensity of the l amp "is corresponding to the headlamp's," although you do not explain how this is possible, given the potential for interference from the vehicle's body.

Standard No. 108 prohibits covers or other styling features in front of a required headlamp when it is being used for purposes such as illuminating the roadway ahead or increasing the visibility of the vehicle in conditions of reduced visibility. We do n ot consider this prohibition applicable when a headlamp is being used, in all likelihood momentarily, for forward signalling as described. Further, use in this manner would not appear to impair the lighting equipment required by the standard. Additionall y, headlamps may be wired to flash for signalling purposes, as you have proposed, however, we are unable to advise you whether operation of this device is acceptable under the laws of the individual States. Your letter does not indicate whether the beam utilized is the upper beam or the lower beam; some jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Virginia prohibit use of the upper beam for signaling purposes. Others may restrict use of headlamps or a portion of them during daylight hours; we expe ct to learn more about this in comments to the docket on the daytime running lamp proposal. In the meantime, I would advise you to write the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036, for its views on State laws.

You have stated that this use "is similar to the daytime running light principle." However, as proposed by the Government of Canada, and by the U.S. Government in the Federal Register (52 FR 9316) such "DRLs" would be automatically energized, and not ene rgized at the driver's choice as is your device. Therefore, we do not view the operation of your device as similar to the daytime running light principle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 24, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U. S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

MMC has been developing concealed headlamps for application to our future models. (See attached). In this design, a portion of the body in front of the concealed headlamps is replaced with a clean material. This will allow the driver to give a steady-state forward warning without having to open the headlamp. The driver gives a forward warning by pull ing a spring-loaded switch, such as the headlamp upper/lower beam changing lever, and the headlamps are turned off by release of this switch. The photometric performance (beam pattern and intensity) is corresponding to the headlamp's.

We believe this function is similar to the daytime running light principle, is useful to avoid accidents, and we find no regulations prohibiting such system.

Please provide us with your opinion as to the legality of this system.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (313) 353-5444. Very truly yours,

Nobuyoshi Takechi Technical Manager

NT/sg MMC SERVICES, INC.

Enclosure

ID: nht87-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard F. Anderson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager Phoenix Products Company, Inc. 4715 North 27th Street Milwaukee, WI 53209

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1987, with respect to the acceptability of stroboscopic lighting as a supplement to the center high-mounted stop lamp. This lamp, or a series of lamps, would operate only under "panic" conditions, when the opera tor exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. You envision both OEM and aftermarket applications.

The acceptability of supplemental lighting equipment is determinable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which i s issued under its authority. Standard No. 108 is primarily concerned with the lighting equipment that it mandates as original equipment for motor vehicles, and replacement equipment for those items. Supplemental stroboscopic lamps are not covered by the standard, but as original equipment is nevertheless subject to several restrictions. A lamp that is not covered by Standard No. 108 is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. (Paragraph S4.1.3. ) We offer no opinion whether a stroboscopic panic light would impair the effectiveness of a vehicle's stop lamp system. However, all passenger car lamps except turn signals and hazard warning signals (and headlamps and side marker lamps when used for si gnaling) must be steady-burning when in use. (S4.5.11) Since the strobe lamp is a pulsing one, it would therefore not be acceptable as original equipment.

Once a vehicle has been sold to its initial purchaser, the safety standards no longer apply. The only restriction that pertains to it is that any modification performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business must not ren der inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As your strobe design would not appear to interfere with the operation of the center high-mounted stop lamp, it does not ap pear to violate this restriction. However, aftermarket equipment of this nature would be subject to the laws of the individual States in which the device is sold and/or used. We are unable to advise you of State laws, and suggest you contact for further advice the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 20, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is written subsequent to a telephone discussion this date with Atty. Taylor Vinson, of your office.

Our company is a manufacturer of lighting products, and at the present, is in a particularly aggressive mode in search of new products to serve both existing and new markets.

I have offered a new product suggestion which would apply to automotive crash avoidance: the suggestion provides for one or more (I visualize three) stroboscopic lights that could be placed adjacent or surrounding the third brake light mounted at the rea r window ("Elizabeth Dole light").

The stroboscopic light (or lights) would not operate under normal braking conditions, but would operate only under "panic" conditions when the operator exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. Such pressure would activate a switch, which in turn, would fire the stroboscopic light(s), thereby providing an additional and attention-drawing warning.

Ms. Jones, my purpose in writing on this subject is that we would appreciate a determination that my suggestion would evolve into a product in conformance with any federal regulations that may exist relative to personal and commercial transportation.

If we learn from your office that the product is within legal limits, we would went to offer the product to both OEM and aftermarkets.

We will appreciate your guidance.

Sincerely,

Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager

ID: nht87-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Arisaka

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. M. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Sect. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-13, Nakameguro, Meguro-ku Tokyo 153, Japan

Dear Mr. Arisaka:

This is in reply to your letter of November 12, 1986, to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey Miller, concerning the photometric reference this for a two lamp headlamp system, and location of aiming pads.

Your first question is what is the mechanical axis for performing photometry tests where the upper beam in a dual beam headlamp if provided by HB3 and HB4 light sources. As you know, the answer is simple for a single bulb sealed beam headlamp of symmetri cal dimensions: a line perpendicular to the aiming plane through the geometric center of the lens (SAE Standard J579c). Thus, the reference axis for the lower beam of your system would be the geometric center of the portion of the lens that is illuminate d by the HB4. The reference axis for the upper beam is not as easy to identify. Theoretically it should be the center of the light pattern that is produced by the two bulbs. This point would probably be somewhere between the midpoint of the axes of the H B3 and the HB4 and the axis of the HB3. This point is not shown on any of your drawings. However, since the intensity of the lower beam is usually less than 5000 cd at rest point H-V, the theoretical point described above will be very close to the axis o f the HB3. For this reason, the axis of the HB3 should be used as the reference axis for your system. In summary, your Case 1 Table A depicts the proper reference axes.

You have also asked where the aiming pads ought to be located on such a headlamp system, saying that NHTSA's interpretation letter of September 6, 1985, indicated that the pads should be placed on the lower beam portion of the lamp's lens, but that lamps twisted on which they were placed elsewhere. Our 1985 letter was written at a time when experience with these lamps was limited. We now believe that the pads can be located anywhere that will permit proper mechanical aiming, proper reference for photome tric purposes, and that do not interfere with the forming of the beam. Therefore, either of the two locations you present, or any other location, is acceptable provided that the three conditions mentioned above are met.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 12, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Miller,

Re. Photometric reference axis for two lamps system, and location of aiming pads

We would like to know a view of the photometric reference axis for two-lamp system with two bulbs (HB3 and HB4), and location of aiming pads.

In case that both HB3 and HB4 are used for the upper beam, where the reference axis for 'the upper beam and the lower beam should be placed in photometric measurement? We show examples of reference axis in Table A.

In addition to the question above, we would like to know where the aiming pads of two-lamp system with two bulbs are located. (Please see Table B.)

On your letter of September 6, 1985, the aiming pads should be located on the optical axis of the lower beam portion (HB4) of the headlamp. But now, there is a lamp which aiming pads is located on the other location in the U.S. market. We would like to k now the view of NHTSA again.

We are looking forward to your reply to our questions. Sincerely yours, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

Sincerely yours,

Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

A. Arisaka Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Sect.

Enc. Table A : Reference axis in photometric measurement Table B : Location of the aiming pads

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION

ID: nht87-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/10/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David C. Maroon -- The Sentinel Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

David C. Maroon The Sentinel Group P.O. BOX 905 Miami, FL 33137-0905

Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in our response. You explained that your company represents, on an exclusive basis, a number of different manufacturers of both wind shields and tempered glazing materials for automobiles. You asked whether it is possible to consolidate these different manufacturers "into one identity by using both one DOT number assigned to the Sentinel group as well as one universal logo.: As explai ned below, the answer is yes with regard to using one logo, but no with regard to using one DOT certification number.

S6 of Standard 205 specified certification and marking requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing material for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. All glazing material must be marked both with the basic identifying informat ion specified in section 6 of the ANSI standard Z26.1 (as modified by S6.1 of Standard 205) and with a certification that the glazing meets the requirements of all applicable federal motor vehicle safety standards. Different certifications are specified for prime manufacturers and other manufacturers/distributors of glazing material (contained in paragraphs 56.2 through S6.2 of the standard).

Further distinction in certification requirements for prime manufacturers depends on whether the glazing is designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, or whether the glazing is designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment. (A prime manufacturer is defined in 56.1 of the Standard as one who fabricates, laminates or tempers the glazing material, as opposed to one who alters or cuts an already manufactured piece of glazing.)

Since you indicate in your letter that the manufacturers you represent make windshields and tempered glazing materials for automobiles, we assume that the glazing is manufactured by the prime manufacturer and is designed for use in a specific motor vehic le or camper. In this case, the S6.2 certification requirements apply, which include marking each piece of glazing material with the symbol DOT and a manufacturer's code mark, assigned by NHTSA.

The purpose of the manufacturer's code mark is to aid the agency in identifying the actual manufacturer of the glazing for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Accordingly, the agency only issues a code mark to a manufacturer that ac tually fabricates, laminates or tempers glazing material. We have found the code mark to be an effective method to identify the manufacturer for enforcement purposes.

Because of this, the agency is less concerned that the distinctive logo be for the same company as that which the code mark indicates. for example, in a November 7, 1983, letter to the Libby-Owens-Ford Company, the agency stated that so long as the manuf acturer places its DOT code mark on the glazing materials, the tracing and enforcement policies would not be circumvented and the use of another company's logo would now violate Standard No. 205. Accordingly, it is acceptable, if you wish, to have each p rime manufacturer mark its glazing material with its unique code mark and your logo for the Sentinel group, which is used for all of the various manufacturers you represent.

I hope this provides an adequate response to your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 30, 1986 Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Per my telephone conversation with Mr. Harper today, I am writing you to request a legal interpretation of the intent of the DOT number. As relayed to you by Mr. Harper, Sentinel would like to be assigned its own "DOT number". We currently represent, on an exclusive basis, a number of different manufacturers of both windshields and tempered parts for automobiles and would like to know whether it would be possible for us to consolidate into one identity by using both one DOT number assigned to the Sentin el group as well as one universal logo.

Please advise us as to whether this would be possible at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

Sincerely,

DAVID C. MAROON

ID: 86-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Andrew A Kroll

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Andrew A. Kroll 1401 East Girard, 1270 Englewood, Colorado 80110

Dear Mr. Kroll:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.109). Specifically you asked whether that standard is applicable to foam-filled passenger car tires that do not have any air in the inner tire cavity. Standard No. 109 does not apply to foam-filled passenger car tires.

Section S2 of Standard No. 109 specifies that "this standard applies to new pneumatic tires for use on passenger cars manufactured after 1948." In section S3 of the standard, the term "pneumatic tire" is defined as "a mechanical device made of rubber, chemicals, fabric and steel or other materials, which, when mounted on an automotive wheel, provides the traction and contains the gas or fluid that sustains the load" (emphasis added). Thus the relevant question is whether the foam filling the tires in question is considered a "gas or fluid". In a February 14, 1975 letter to Mr. J.F. Hutchinson, NHTSA stated that foam-filled tires "should not be considered pneumatic tires." This conclusion means that foam-filled tires for use on passenger cars are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 109.

One result of this determination is that foam-filled tires can not be installed as original equipment on any new passenger car Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims (49 CFR S571.110) sets forth requirements for new passenger cars. Section S4.1 of Standard No. 110 reads as follows: "Passenger cars shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of S571.109." Since foam-filled tires are not subject to Standard No. 109, they do not meet its requirements. Thus, it would be a violation of Standard No. 110 for any new passenger car to be equipped with foam-filled tires as original equipment.

You should also recognize that, even though foam-filled tires are not subject to Standard No. 109, they are still "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)). Among other things, this means that, if there is a determination that the tires contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer of the foam-filled tires is required to notify purchasers and dealers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge to the purchasers, if the tire was purchased less than 3 calendar years before the determination of defect was made.

If you have any further questions on this subject or need more information, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Andrew A. Kroll 1401 East Girard, #270 Englewood, Colorado 80110 (303) 761-9227

23 April 1986

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Chief Counsel Jones,

I am requesting an interpretation of the "Code of Federal Regulation" (No. 49) Part 571, Standard 109. Presently, the standard states that a specified air pressure must be in an automotive or truck tire for on road usage. What then is the legal status of foam filled tires without any air in the inner tire cavity. These tires are in use on heavy industrial machinery, and would have security applications for automobiles.

I would very much appreciate an interpretation of this standard on how it pertains to foam filled or solid tires for on road usage.

Thank you very much for your time. I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

Andrew A. Kroll

ID: 86-6.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Wallace

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William Wallace Assistant Manager Chemical Commodities New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn NY 11207

Dear Mr. Wallace:

Thank you for your letter of June 19, 1986, concerning how our regulations would affect the use of certain glazing materials in buses. You explained that the Transit Authority has recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As a part of that pork, the aide glazing of the buses was replaced with glazing that contained the following markings,"Lexan, MR 5000 sheet, ANSI % 26-1, Camplas, NY."

Subsequent to receipt of your letter, we received additional Information from General Electric, the manufacturer of Lexan, concerning the glazing material used in the side windows of your buses. According to General Electric, the Lexan glazing material used in these windows can meet all of the performance requirements set in Standard No. 205 for "AS-5" glazing materials. The glazing material apparently was not marked as "AS-5" material. As discussed below, if the only markings on the glazing are the markings you described in your letter, the glazing apparently does not comply pith the marking requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles and glazing sold as replacement equipment. (The various types of glazing are designated as "items" in the standard.) Plastic glazing materials, such as Lexan, can be used in a number of different locations in a bus depending on which performance requirements the glazing meets. If the plastic glazing meets the requirements set for AS-5 glazing materials, It can be used in any window in a bus, except for the windshield, the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver, and the rearmost windows, if used for driving Visibility.

In addition to setting performance requirements for different items of glazing, the standard requires glazing materials to contain certain markings. The marking requirements of 56 of the standard vary depending on the intended use of the glazing and the person that is marking the glazing. At a minimum, the standard requires the glazing to be marked with the AS number (which indicates that the material meets the performance requirements set for that "item" of glazing material), a model number and the manufacturer's logo. The information you provided about the markings on the glazing installed in your buses indicates that the glazing does not have an AS number marked on it.

Any glazing sold for use in a motor vehicle must conform to the applicable requirements of Standard No. 205. Since there appears to be an apparent noncompliance, we have been in contact with General Electric to obtain further information about this possible noncompliance.

Our regulations do not preclude the Transit Authority from operating a vehicle with noncomplying glazing materials: however, you should check with State authorities to determine the effect of New York law on operating these buses.

Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of the agency: If you need further information, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 19, 1986

Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

The New York City Transit Authority recently contracted to have several hundred buses rehabilitated. As part of this process, the side glazing on these buses was replaced with glazing marked as follows:

LEXAN MR 5000 SHEET ANSI Z 26-1 CAMPLAS, NY

The Authority has questioned the legality of operating buses with this material and would appreciate any comments your office may have to offer regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

William Wallace Assistant Manager, Chemical Commodities

ID: nht88-4.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ANDREW E. WOOLNER -- GENERAL MANAGER AUST IN ROVER U.S. LIAISON OFFICE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/07/87 FROM ANDREW E WOOLNER TO ERIKA JONES; RE INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS NO. 101, CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS, SECTION S 5.3.5

TEXT: Dear Mr. Woolner:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked about the illumination requirements applicable to a trip computer display. According to your letter, the trip c omputer display is provided in addition to a fuel gauge and a speedometer/odometer. The trip computer is able, among other functions, to display supplemental information concerning fuel consumption, fuel used, average speed, trip distance and distance t o arrival. As discussed below, this letter confirms your understanding that illumination is not required for the trip computer display, but, if illumination is provided, it is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5 of the standard. This letter a lso addresses the illumination requirements applicable to a vehicle condition monitor.

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 manufa cturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 101 requires that vehicles with any display listed in the standard must meet specified requirements for the location, identification and illumination of such display. See section S5. Among the displays listed in Standard No. 101 are the fu el level telltale, fuel level gauge, speedometer and odometer. See section S5.1 and column 1 of Table 2.

It is our opinion that a trip computer provided in addition to a fuel gauge and speedometer/odometer is not considered a fuel level guage,

speedometer or odometer within the meaning of Standard No. 101. Moreover, a trip computer is not otherwise included among the displays listed in the standard. Since Standard No. 101's illumination requirements other than those of section S5.3.5 onl y apply to displays listed in the standard, they are not applicable to the trip computer.

As you suggest in your letter, if illumination is provided for the trip computer display, the illumination is subject to the requirements of section S5.3.5. That section specifies requirements for any source of illumination within the passenger compartme nt which is forward of a transverse vertical plane 4.35 inch rearward of the manikin "H" point with the driver's seat in its rearmost driving position, which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by the standard, which is not a telltale, an d which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion.

In a telephone conversation with Edward Glancy of my staff, Mr. Marx Elliott advised that you are also interested in what illumination requirements may be applicable to a vehicle condition monitor. According to the information provided with your letter, the vehicle condition monitor indicates the following: door or trunk lid not shut, low outside air temperature, lamp failure, low washer fluid, and low engine coolant.

Each of the displays included in the vehicle condition monitor is a telltale. However, none of the telltales are among the displays listed in the standard. We note that the information provided with your letter indicates that the vehicle condition monito r illustrates, using a vehicle map, the operation of several lamps. If a lamp fails, the vehicle condition monitor causes the appropriate segment in the vehicle map to extinguish. While the headlamp high beam is among the lamps for which the vehicle co ndition monitor provides information, Mr. Elliott has advised us that this information is supplemental to the traditional high beam telltale provided on the instrument panel. It is our opinion based on these facts, that such a supplemental display is no t considered a high beam telltale within the meaning of Standard No. 101.

The telltales included in the vehicle condition monitor are not subject to any illumination requirements. Since none of the telltales included on the vehicle condition monitor are listed in Standard No. 101, they need not meet the illumination requireme nts specified by that standard for telltales. Moreover, as indicated by the language of section S5.3.5, quoted above, the illumination requirements of that section do not apply to telltales.

ID: nht76-1.20

DATE: 06/16/76

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

TO: Moss Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The President has asked me to reply to your letter of February 9, 1976, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to replacement brake hoses for MG sports cars built from approximately 1945 to 1955.

All brake hose and brake hose end fittings manufactured on or after September 1, 1974, must meet the performance and labeling requirements of Standard No. 106-74. All brake hose assemblies manufactured on or after March 1, 1975, must meet those performance and labeling requirements in the standard that apply to assemblies and, with an exception noted below, must be constructed of conforming hose and end fittings.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are not applicable to classic or antique cars in the following sense: a standard applies only to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that is manufactured after its effective date. Thus, for example, there is no requirement that the MG's in question be retrofitted with conforming brake hose. However, any person manufacturing brake hose for use in such a vehicle must, on and after September 1, 1974, ensure that the hose conforms.

You may find some relief in S12 of the standard. To facilitate the depletion of inventories of hose manufactured before September 1, 1974, that conforms to all aspects of the standard except the labeling requirements, this provision permits the use of such hose in assemblies manufactured before September 1, 1976.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to hydraulic brake system components other than Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, and Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MOSS MOTORS, Ltd.

April 14, 1976

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

I am very disappointed at not having received a reply to my letter of February 9, 1976, a copy of which is enclosed herewith.

May I please have the courtesy of a prompt reply to this letter?

Yours very truly,

E. Alan Moss

Enclosure: letter copy

February 9, 1976

Department of Transportation Washington, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to you at this time in order to attempt to clarify the present situation as regards hydraulic brake hoses as fitted to older British Sports Cars.

I have just finished reading all available information published by the Department of Transportation covering the manufacture of hose and fittings effective September 1, 1974, manufacture of brake hose assemblies March 1, 1975, and manufacture of vehicles effective September 1, 1975.

A very large part of our business is in the sales of replacement parts for the British MG sports car as built from approximately 1945 to approximately 1955. These are the models designated as TA, TB, TC, TD, TF add Y. All of these vehicles had hydraulic braking systems built by British Lockheed Corporation, from whom we have been obtaining replacement parts in the past. We are now unable to supply our customers with any brake hoses whatsoever due to the fact that Lockheed has apparently not "tooled up" to produce these hoses to your new specifications as yet and probably will not do so, at least until they can catch up with the present more popular hoses. There are 2 other companies, one in England and one in Australia, who have supplied replacement hoses in the past but I do not believe that they are labeled to meet the United States specifications.

While we are very anxious to be able to supply our customers with brake hoses in order to keep these rather elderly cars running, we certainly do not want to be party to supplying any hoses which would be unsafe or illegal, particular in light of todays very common lawsuits. I have heard, unofficially, that the DoT requirements are not applicable to older (classic or antique?) cars and would like to hear from you directly as to how we should best handle this situation.

I would also like to know if there are any regulations covering other hydraulic brake components such as cylinders, repair kits, or merely hoses and fluid.

Anxiously awaiting your prompt reply, I remain,

yours very truly,

E. Alan Moss