ID: nht79-3.47

DATE: 03/21/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 22, 1979, letter asking several questions about the application of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. These questions involve the construction of a bus with a door that is made inoperable until its user desires to install a lift gate.

First, you ask whether a door that is always operable must comply with all of the standard's requirements. The answer to this question is yes. In a related question, you ask whether the lettering and operating instructions must be removed if a user subsequently installs a lift gate and the exit no longer complies with the necessary opening dimensions of Standard No. 217.

As you know, only the manufacturer of the vehicle prior to first purchase is responsible for ensuring the compliance of the completed vehicle with the applicable safety standards. Subsequent to the first purchase, no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard.

Any of the above-mentioned businesses may install a lift gate in a vehicle as long as they do not otherwise knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle. Accordingly, for example, a lift gate could be installed as long as sufficient other emergency exits are available in a vehicle so that it remains in compliance with the requirements. The fact that the exit in which the lift is installed no longer complies is not important as long as there continues to be sufficient exits in the vehicle to continue its overall compliance with the standard. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's authority over the modification of vehicles after first purchase extends to preventing the rendering inoperative of the vehicle with the safety standards. The agency does not have the authority to force a modifier of a vehicle, after its first purchase, to undertake other responsibilities. Therefore, it would not be necessary for modifiers to remove the operating instructions or lettering applicable to the former emergency exit, although the NHTSA would encourage them to do so to avoid possible confusion in the event of an accident.

If a dealer or other business installs a lift gate prior to first purchase, it becomes an alterer of the vehicle and must attach an alterer's label indicating compliance of the altered vehicle with the standards. In such a case, the alterer would be required to remove the label and operating instructions from the exit in which the gate was installed.

Finally, you ask whether a door that is constructed so as to be inoperable by either removing the operating mechanism or through the installation of a rub rail over its outside would have to comply with the requirements applicable to joints (Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength). When a door is made inoperable by a vehicle manufacturer in the manner you suggest, it becomes part of the bus wall structure. As such, any joints on the door that would fall within the ambit of the joint strength standard would be required to comply with that standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

January 22, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to request interpretation relating to FMVSS 217 - Emergency Exits.

We are receiving requests from our customers to install a door in the right-hand side of the bus. The purpose of the door is to allow for possible installation of a lift gate at a later date, to convert to handicap use. The bus could be equipped with or without a seat installed at the door location.

(1) If the door is in operating condition it is our interpretation it must meet all requirements as to size, labels, operating forces, etc. Is this interpretation correct?

(2) The door would be installed in such a manner it could not be operated. Examples could be no operating mechanism or a rub rail across the door on the outside of the body.

In this case, would the door assembly be considered a part of the body and joints of panels on the door be required to meet FMVSS 221 - Joint Strength?

(3) If the answer to number one is yea, it must comply with all operating force, labels, etc., of FMVSS 217, then if at a later date the customer or dealer installs a lift gate which blocks the opening, is it still a requirement to have the clear 20 x 13 opening, and if it does not have the opening, must the lettering operating instructions, etc., be removed?

(4) If the bus is an adult bus and the door does not serve as an emergency exit after installation of a lift, who assumes the responsibility to make sure the necessary square inch of exits are provided? (As required by S5.2 of FMVSS 217)

Your prompt reply to the above questions will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht94-4.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 29, 1994

FROM: Allen F. Brauninger -- Attorney, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

TO: Walter Myers, Esq. -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/24/95 LETTER FROM PHILLIP RECHT TO ALLEN F. BRAUNINGER (A43; VSA 102(4))

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

As you will recall, during our telephone conversation on November 28, 1994, we discussed a consumer complaint involving a window shade intended for use with an automobile.

I am enclosing a copy of the complaint for consideration by the staff of your agency.

Thanks for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosure

CONSUMER PRODUCT INCIDENT REPORT

1. NAME OF RESPONDENT Lisa Ryer

2. PHONE NO. (HOME) (WORK) 609-799-6094 none

3. STREET ADDRESS 8407 Tamarron Dr.

4. CITY Plainsboro STATE ZIP CODE NJ 08536

5. DESCRIBE INCIDENT OR HAZARD, INCLUDING DATA ON INJURIES Consumer was removing daughter from car seat when daughter's sweater got caught on car window shade (shade was suctioned to rear side car window) and her chin was lacerated by the sharp metal ed ge of the metal rod at bottom of shade; Rx at home.

11/94 Consumer reported incident to Mr. Ware at manufacturer's quality -cont-

6. DATE OF INCIDENTS 11/8/94

7. IF INJURY OR NEAR MISS OBTAIN AGE/SEX 35 M/F AND DESCRIBE INJURY: laceration to chin

8. IF VICTIM DIFFERENT FROM RESPONDENT, PROVIDE NAME Danielle

RELATIONSHIP daughter

9. DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCT white/grey soft plastic & metal car window shade

10. BRAND NAME Safety 1st

11. MFR/DISTRIBUTOR NAME, ADDR. & PHONE Safety 1st unknown unknown, MA 00000 unknown unknown unknown unknown

12. MODEL, SERIAL NUMBERS unknown, (size: unknown)

13. DEALER'S NAME, ADDRESS & PHONE Bed, Bath & Beyond unknown Lawrenceville, NJ 00000 unknown

14. WAS THE PRODUCT DAMAGED, REPAIRED OR MODIFIED? YES X NO IF YES, BEFORE OR AFTER THE INCIDENT? after DESCRIBE: damaged: see narrative

15. PRODUCT PURCHASED NEW X USED DATE PURCHASED 4/94 AGE 7 mos.

16. DOES PRODUCT HAVE WARNING LABELS? IF SO, NOTE: unknown

17. HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER? YES x NO IF NOT, DO YOU PLAN TO CONTACT THEM? YES NO OTHER?

18. IS THE PRODUCT STILL AVAILABLE? YES X NO IF NOT, ITS DISPOSITION

19. MAY WE USE YOUR NAME WITH THIS REPORT? YES X NO

FOR ADMINISTRATION USE

20. DATE RECEIVED 11/15/94

21. RECEIVED BY (NAME & OFFICE) ldm/HL

22. DOCUMENT NO. H94B0180A

23. FOLLOW-UP ACTION

24. PRODUCT CODE(S)

25. DISTRIBUTION

26. ENDORSER'S NAME & TITLE

CPSC FORM 175 (9/89)

Narrative Continued

control department, who requested shade for inspection and consumer refused.

Distributor phone #: unknown

CPSC Source: NEWS: DEAR ABBY

ID: 1982-2.1

DATE: APRIL 6, 1982

FROM: J. F. WALKUP -- PROJECT ANALYST-REEVES BROTHERS, INC.

TO: ROGER TILTON -- CHIEF COUNSEL-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO APRIL 30, 1982 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO WALKUP

TEXT: Reeves Bros. is interested in determining if there are fire retardancy regulations covering replacement automobile seat covers.

Our understanding, from sources within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is that there are no regulations covering the after market.

If this information is correct, would you please advise Reeves in writing?

Thank you for your assistance.

ID: nht94-1.23

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Boshaw -- M&L Auto Trim

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Holscher and letter dated 12/28/93 from Lloyd Boshaw to John Womack (OCC-9512)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of January 28, 1993, asking whether you must disconnect an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp when you add an aftermarket spoiler to the deck lid that incorporates such a lamp.

I enclose a copy of an interpretive letter we sent David Holscher on August 31, 1990, which remains our position today. In brief, a spoiler lamp will supersede the original equipment center lamp. When the spoiler is installed, Federal law does not dict ate whether the original lamp must be disconnected or remain usable. That question is answerable under State law, and we suggest that you consult the Department of California Highway Patrol for its views. If California has no regulation bearing on this problem, we assume that you may either disconnect the original lamp or leave it connected, as your customers desire.

ID: nht94-8.47

DATE: January 21, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Lloyd Boshaw -- M&L Auto Trim

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/31/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to David Holscher and letter dated 12/28/93 from Lloyd Boshaw to John Womack (OCC-9512)

TEXT:

We have received your letter of January 28, 1993, asking whether you must disconnect an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp when you add an aftermarket spoiler to the deck lid that incorporates such a lamp.

I enclose a copy of an interpretive letter we sent David Holscher on August 31, 1990, which remains our position today. In brief, a spoiler lamp will supersede the original equipment center lamp. When the spoiler is installed, Federal law does not dictate whether the original lamp must be disconnected or remain usable. That question is answerable under State law, and we suggest that you consult the Department of California Highway Patrol for its views. If California has no regulation bearing on this problem, we assume that you may either disconnect the original lamp or leave it connected, as your customers desire.

ID: nht76-4.42

DATE: 02/25/76

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

TO: Byron A. Crampton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 16, 1976, concerning crew cab doors for use on fire trucks, and the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

You asked two questions in your letter:

(1) Is it the intent of FMVSS 206 to actually address door hardware for doors that are adjacent to a walkway and not a seat?

Standard No. 206 is applicable to the type of vehicle that you described. Paragraph S4 of the standard states that "component on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard". The standard does not require the door to be directly adjacent to a seat. The door on your vehicle leads directly "into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations," so the standard is applicable. The presence of a walkway is irrevelant.

(2) If the standard does apply would not the installation of an untested conventional door structure in place of a folding door result in a safer vehicle?

The NHTSA hopes that manufacturers would install conventional hinged door structures instead of folding doors on fire trucks, if the hinged doors would result in producing safer vehicles. The cost of testing the components of hinged doors for purposes of Standard 206 should not be determinative of whether the manufacturer will install hinged doors or folding doors on the fire trucks. Rather, the safety of the firemen who must use the trucks should be the determinative factor.

You should be aware that the tests in Standard No. 206 are laboratory tests of the components, and do not involve the vehicle as a whole. These component systems are generally available from suppliers and are already warranted as being in compliance with Federal standards. Therefore, the cost of using conventional hinged doors might not be as prohibitive as you had supposed.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

January 16, 1976

Richard B. Dyson, Asst. Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Division (FAMD) of the Truck Body and Equipment Association (TBEA) represents more than fifty manufacturers of fire apparatus, who in turn account for approximately 85% of the pieces of equipment sold within the United States.

Recently several FAMD members have questioned this office as to specific requirements of FMVSS 206 as applicable to fire apparatus equipped with crew cabs. The vehicles in question (see sketch) are generally produced on a commercial truck chassis by adding fire fighting equipment, a fire apparatus body, and finally - a crew cab which allows the vehicle to carry additional personnel.

From the sketch, it can be seen, that the crew cab doors open up to a walkway to the passenger compartment and not onto a designated seating position. The three designated seating positions furnished with the crew cab are set back into the compartment to allow personnel clothed (Illegible Words) and breathing apparatus to walk to their seat.

Section S4 of FMVSS 206 states that the standard does not apply to folding doors or doors that are designed to be easily attached and removed, and therefore when faced with the high costs of testing a few completed vehicles to FMVSS 206 or installing either folding doors or quick release hinges, the decision is simple - but inconsistent with our aim toward developing the best piece of fire apparatus possible.

With this dilema in mind, our questions are as follows:

1. Is it the intent of FMVSS 206 to actually address door hardware for doors that are adjacent to a walkway and not a seat?

2. If the standard does apply, would not the installation of an untested conventional door structure in place of a folding door result in a safer vehicle?

We would appreciate any additional comments that you may have concerning this situation.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

* Notes

1. Crew cab doors are presently the folding type or equipped with quick disconnect hinges.

FIRE APPARATUS with CREW CAB

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht69-1.28

DATE: 02/03/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of December 4, 1968, to Mr. Eugene Laskin regarding Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 on rearview mirrors.

Your interpretation and enclosed figure 1 are not entirely correct. The 35 foot distance is measured horizontally, not at an angle. The plane must be tangent to the vehicle -- not tangent to the mirror. The measurement is made at the road surface 35 feet to the rear of the projected eye position and 8 feet outward from this plane.

ID: 86-3.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Brenda Hartman

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you are considering. In your letter, you asked the agency not to disclose your idea for this product. In a phone conversation of April 28, 1986, with Stephen Oesch of my staff, you waived your request for complete nondisclosure and agreed to the disclosure of a generic description of your product. As you requested, we will not disclose the specific details of your product or the sketches you enclosed with your letter.

Your product is designed to reduce the possibility that a young child could unbuckle a vehicle safety belt. The product would enclose the buckle of the safety belt, so that it is difficult for a child to operate the buckle release.

We have significant reservations about your product. I hope the following discussion explains our reservations and the effect of our regulations on your product.

Our agency has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

Although we do not have any standards that directly apply to your product, we do have several statutory provisions that could affect it. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as your product are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The agency does not determine the existence of safety defects except in the context of a defect proceeding, and thus is unable to say whether your product might or might not contain such a defect. However, the agency has reservations about your product because of our concern that people be able to easily and quickly operate a safety belt in an emergency. As the agency said last year on the related topic of the force level necessary to operate buckles in child restraints:

The agency's safety concerns over child restraint buckle force release and size stem from the need for convenient buckling and unbuckling of a child and, in emergencies, to quickly remove the child from the restraint. This latter situation can occur in instances of post-crash fires, immersions, etc. A restraint that is difficult to disengage, due to the need for excessive buckle pressure or difficulty in operating the release mechanism because of a very small release button, can unnecessarily endanger the child in the restraint and the adult attempting to release the child. (50 FR 33722, August 21, 1985)

In addition, use of your product can be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. One requirement of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is that the pushbutton release for a safety belt must have a a minimum area for applying the release force. Installation of your device by a commercial business could be prohibited since it apparently would substantially reduce the minimum area available for applying the release force to the safety belt pushbutton. In addition, Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, requires new safety belts to meet a flammability resistance requirement. Thus, although Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket equipment, commercial businesses could not install your device if it would mean that the safety belt no longer meet the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, our policy is to encourage vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Installation of your product by any person could be inconsistent with that policy.

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

SINCERELY,

THIS IS A PROPIATARY IDEA, NOT FOR DISCLOSURE.

February 27, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel N.H.T.S.A.

RE: Inquiry of safety standards.

Dear Miss Jones,

I am submitting to you my idea. I would like to know if there are any safety standards which may prohibit me from proceeding with such a product.

I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and would like a response at your earliest convience.

Sincerely,

Brenda Hartman 8617 CRESTON PINCKNEY, MI 48169 (313) 878-2413

ID: nht88-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/07/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: E. W. Dahl -- Vice President, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 11/1/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Gary M. Ceazan (Std. 109; Std. 119) 2/16/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Mike Kaizaki 4/18/88 letter from Gary M. Ceazan to U.S. Dot (occ 1951)

TEXT:

Mr. E. W. Dahl Vice President Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

This responds to your letter concerning the tire marking requirements of Standard No. 119, 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 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5

As discussed below, it is our opinion that the above markings are prohibited by Standard No. 119.

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, 1987, 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 infor mation 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 si ze.

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 us ing 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 design ation. 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 1974 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Standard No. 109 which stated that NHTSA believed that the providing of replacement size information on the tire itself was advantageous to consumers. See 39 FR 10162.

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. 109 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 concludi ng that this exception existed. (See June 8, 1971 letter to Mercedes-Benz; January 19, 1972 letter to Kelly-Springfield; March 2, 1973 letter to Samperit.)

The NPRM sought to "clarify the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109, 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 1971-7 2 interpretation letters cited above do not appear to have been expressly overruled, our February 7, 1980 interpretation letter to Michelin (copy enclosed) concluded that Standard No. 109 prohibited replacement markings.

NHTSA has never interpreted Standard No. 119 to permit any type of dual size markings, including replacement markings. Based on the reasoning presented in our July 9, 1987 interpretation letter to Michelin, and the additional discussion presented above, we conclude that Standard No. 119 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 August 12, 1987 Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter concerns the tire marking requirements of FMVSS 119, section S6.5(c), the tire size designation. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company wishes to mark three sizes of wide base super single tires whose size designations are being changed from conv entional inch-based markings to metric-based markings. We propose to use, for a transitional period, the format: "METRIC SIZE replaces inch size", for each of the following three sizes--

385/65R22.5 REPLACES 15R22.5

425/65R22.5 REPLACES 16.5R22.5

445/65R22.5 REPLACES 18R22.5 (We propose to mark the word "replaces" and the replaced size designation adjacent to the primary size designation, in characters no larger than one-half the height of the primary size designation.

Since the time FMVSS109 and FMVSS119 became effective, the question of size marking tires has come up frequently, the last time being your recent opinion letter to Mr. J B White of Michelin, Greenville, South Carolina. Since the subject of that letter in volves one of the exact sizes in this letter, we feel it necessary to further discuss the intent of this request.

August 11, 1987 -2- Erika Z. Jones

The NHTSA has reiterated in opinion letters and rulemaking that the purpose of the tire labeling requirements is to provide

with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. The NHTSA has previously stated that:

"Replacement size markings, however, represent that a particular size is replacing or superseding an existing size designation. The NHTSA believes this type of information to be advantageous to consumers, providing on the tire itself information that a s pecified size designation is intended to be used in place of another." (39 FR 10162, 18MAR74).

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.

We will appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

E W Dahl

ID: nht87-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen Kraco Enterprises, Inc. 505 E. Euclid Ave. Compton, CA 90224

Dear Mr. van Kreuningen:

This responds to your letters asking about the effect of Federal law or regulations on an aftermarket steel "shelf" which you have designed for installation in the area above the windshield where the sun visors are located. The shelf would be used to hol d small items such as maps or glasses and would be provided with visors on its underside to replace the vehicle's original visors. I apologize for our delay in replying.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes our agency to issue federal motor vehicle safety standards which apply to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. It also authorizes us to require the recall and remedy of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment which contains a safety defect.

The sun visor in a new vehicle is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact, which requires that the visor be "constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material" and that the visor's mountin g must "present no material edge radius of less than 0.125 inch that is statically contactable by a spherical 6.5-inch diameter head form." The purpose of the standard is to reduce the injuries that occur when unrestrained occupants strike the visor or i ts mounting with their heads. If your shelf were installed by the manufacturer of a new motor vehicle, the visors attached to it would have to comply with the visor requirements of the standard, and the shelf would have to meet the mounting requirements. I am enclosing a copy of the standard for your review.

Although you propose to sell your shelf in the aftermarket, not as an item of original equipment, the standard can nonetheless affect persons who install the shelf. The Act provides that a person who manufactures, distributes, sells or repairs motor vehi cles cannot "render inoperative" a regulated device such as a sun visor or its mounting. If a repair shop were to remove a vehicle's sun visor and replace it with your shelf, the shop would be in violation of the Act unless your shelf complied with the s tandard. The sole exception to this rule is the individual owner, who may install a shelf in his own vehicle without regard to the standard.

In addition to the requirements of the standard, our safety effect authority could have a bearing on your sale of the shelf. If the shelf would normally be installed so that its rear edge could be hit by an occupant's head in a crash, it would seem likel y to cause serious injury. It is thus possible that the shelf would be determined to contain a safety defect subject to recall. I urge you to examine the possibility of such injury before you make further plans to market the shelf.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

On March 25, 1986, we sent a letter to you requesting what safety standards apply on an accessory shelf to be used in cars or trucks.

As of this date, we have not received a reply. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Attached is a copy of the letter for your information.

Sincerely,

Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl.

March 25, 1986

Office of the Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington. D.C.

Subject: Accessory Shelf for Truck/Cars

Gentlemen:

Kraco Enterprises is a manufacturer/distributor of automotive aftermarket sound and accessory equipment.

Presently, we are evaluating the feasibility of marketing a "shelf" which is to be installed in the general area where normally visors are located. The shelf is made of steel and is provided with new visors. It is to be used to place small items (cigaret te;, glasses, maps, etc.) within easy reach of the driver or front seat passenger. A sketch of the shelf, including mounting instructions, is attached for your review.

Before pursuing this item further, we would like to receive the following information:

1) Is this type of product presently prohibited?

2) If not, what safety standards apply?

Please supply us with copies of applicable safety standards.

If you desire any additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl.