ID: aiam2007

Dear Mr. Long: This is to confirm your telephone conversation of July 31, 1975, wit Mark Schwimmer concerning the treadwear test procedures specified in 49 CFR Part 575.104, *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* (UTQGS).; You had previously pointed out that the A78-13 and other tires ar available neither as original equipment nor as recommended replacement options on any 1975 model passenger cars, although they are available as replacement options for the 1974 Ford Pinto. You had asked whether it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to conduct treadwear testing for such tires on a 1975 Pinto, in light of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) statement that; >>>tires will be tested for compliance only on vehicles for which the are available as original equipment or recommended replacement options. (40 FR 23076, May 28, 1975)<<<; As Mr. Schwimmer explained to you, the UTQGS rules does not dictate th method by which a tire manufacturer must conduct his testing to assign grades. It merely specifies the procedures which the NHTSA will follow when testing tires for compliance with the rule. While the surest way for the tire manufacturer to be confident of compliance would be to follow these procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. His obligation is simply to ensure that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the specified procedures, his tires are capable of achieving the grades which he has assigned to them. He may fulfill this obligation by whatever means he believes reliable and necessary. Thus, for example, he might choose a 1975 Pinto to test an A78-13 tire, if he is confident that the model year change in the Pinto will have no effect on the tire's treadwear performance. This decision is his, however. The NHTSA, in its compliance testing, would test such a tire on a 1974 Pinto or on some other passenger car for which it is original equipment or a recommended replacement option.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4518

Dear Mr. Shomlo: This is in reply to your letter of March 25, 1988 enclosing a 'Peace' decal designed to be affixed to the center highmounted stop lamp. The letters and design are in white, printed on transparent plastic, 'in an effort to preserve the basic requirements for an effective projected luminous area of the lens and the specified candela.' You have asked what 'Federal/Legal authorizations we need to obtain, stating that we comply with all the regulations and the requirements regarding this product.' There are no regulations that apply directly to the decal, nor any Federal restrictions on its sale. Thus you cannot state in any sales materials that the product meets Federal requirements, for there are none. If a center highmounted brake lamp would continue to meet all applicable requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 after installation of your decal, there are no restrictions on its use. Although you intend the product to preserve the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, it is not certain that this will occur. The decal has the potential of obscuring light from some of the l3 test points at distances where candela photometrics must be measured and the specified minima met. However, its actual effect can be determined only through laboratory tests on lamps of different sizes and lens and reflector designs. Although you have no liability under Federal law for selling this decal, a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act will result if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied by a manufacturer, distributor, or dealer before the first sale of the vehicle. A violation will also occur if the decal creates a noncompliance and if it is applied after the vehicle's first sale by any of these persons or by a motor vehicle repair business. There is no violation of Federal law if the decal is applied by a person other than those named above, such as the vehicle owner. In the absence of a violation of Federal law there may nonetheless be State statutes restricting the application of the decal under any circumstances. We are unable to advise you on State laws. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: nht95-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 19, 1995

FROM: Milford R. Bennett -- Director, Safety Affairs, Safety & Restraints Center, General Motors; Signature by F. Laux

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Subject: Request for FMVSS 205 Interpretation; USG 3183

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/19/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO MILFORD BENNETT (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 205)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of FMVSS 205. Specifically, General Motors seeks the agency's concurrence that a vehicle equipped with a particular rear window sunshade meets the light transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 .

General Motors plans to offer a rear window sunshade in a near-future Cadillac model. The sunshade is a screen-like device that significantly reduces the light and heat load entering through the backlite. In its raised position, the sunshade covers app roximately 90% of the backlite area, and the light transmissibility through the combined backlite and sunshade is less than 70%. In its retracted position, the sunshade is stowed in the panel shelf area below the backlite, such that no portion of the bac klite is obscured. A driver operated switch on the instrument panel is used to electrically raise and lower the sunshade.

FMVSS 205 requires a minimum of 70% light transmissibility through glazing that is requisite for driving visibility. The agency has historically interpreted the backlite of passenger cars to be requisite for driving visibility. General Motors seeks the Chief Counsel's interpretation that the proposed sunshade comports with the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205. Our reasons for believing that a vehicle equipped with the sunshade would continue to comply with FMVSS 205 are summarized as follow s:

* The rear window sunshade would have no adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. As with conventional windshield sunvisors, drivers can be expected to utilize the sunshade in a way that will maximize, rather than diminish, driving safety and comfort. Wi th the sunshade in its raised position, trailing vehicles and other objects are readily visible through the screen mesh. Driver and passenger side outside rearview mirrors further provide for rearward visibility, comparable to other passenger carrying v ehicles (light trucks, vans, multipurpose passenger vehicles) which are not required by FMVSS 205 to have 70% light transmittance in the backlite area.

* The sunshade is not glazing material, nor is it in contact with glazing material. FMVSS 205 states that: "This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment."

* The rear window sunshade is fully analogous to conventional windshield sunvisors. In both cases, the driver-selectable device can be positioned in a way that reduces effective transmissibility below 70%, and then easily stowed when not needed to resto re full transmittance.

* There is a well established international precedent for rear window sunshades. European and Japanese regulatory authorities have explicitly recognized and accepted these devices.

General Motors is aware of previous Chief Counsel interpretations stating that the transmissibility requirements of FMVSS 205 must be met with a rear window sunscreen in position. (Reference Ms. Erika Jones letter to Mr. T. E. McConnell dated September 22, 1986, and Ms. Erika Jones letter to Ms. Susan B. House dated December 22, 1985.) We believe there is a critical distinction between the products the agency has previously commented on and the rear window sunshade GM contemplates. Specifically, the e arlier products were apparently tinting materials applied to the backlite, or shade devices that physically contacted the backlite via attaching hardware. By virtue of being in physical contact with the backlite, these earlier sunscreening products coul d be interpreted as being part of the backlite. The rear window sunshade GM plans to install will not be attached to the backlite in either the raised or stowed position, and therefore is clearly not part of the backlite glazing subject to FMVSS 205.

We would appreciate a favorable response at the agency's earliest convenience. In order to accommodate our product plans for the sunshade device, we would like to obtain a response by July, 1995, if possible. If there is any additional information we ca n provide to help expedite the agency's review, please contact Mr. Philip Horton (810-947-1738), Mr. Richard Humphrey of our Washington office (775-5071), or me (810-947-0149).

Thank you.

ID: aiam5210

"Dear Mr. Jennings: This responds to your letter received in thi Office on July 2, asking for an opinion of your invention, the Alternating Wavelength Low-Beam (AWL). The AWL 'connects to the already existing low beam headlights, by just plugging it between the electrical sockets and the lights.' The effect of the device is to create 'light modulations of less than 17 per second, alternating from one of the two existing low-beam headlights to the other, and at the same time, changing wavelengths slightly, from one to the other (not flashing on and off).' We have no opinion on the safety merits of your invention but can provide you with an interpretation of its relationship to Federal law. The AWL appears intended as an aftermarket device. There are no Federal restrictions on the sale of this device. Nor is there any Federal restriction upon installation of the AWL when it is installed on a vehicle by its owner. Such an installation appears a distinct possibility from your brief description of it. At this point, the question of the legality of its use is determined under the laws of the States where the AWL is operated. You represent that its operation in Texas is acceptable to the Department of Public Safety. However, this opinion would not be binding on other States. We are unable to advise you on the legality of using the AWL in the various States and suggest that you ask for an opinion from the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203. However, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) prohibits most persons other than the owner (specifically, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses) from acts that may 'knowingly render inoperative', in whole or in part, safety equipment that the vehicle manufacturer has added pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The lower-beam headlamps are original equipment installed by the vehicle manufacturer under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Standard No. 108 requires headlamps to be steady-burning in use, though means may be provided to flash them on and off automatically for signalling purposes. Because the modulation created by the AWL results in a headlamp beam that is neither steady burning nor an on-off signal flash, the vehicle's headlamp system would no longer be in compliance with Standard No. 108. In our view, the headlamp system's performance would have been rendered partially inoperative within the meaning of the Act's prohibition when the AWL is sold in the aftermarket and installed by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, and motor vehicle repair business. The Act provides for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of the prohibition. We hope that you find this information useful. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht92-5.50

DATE: June 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: John W. Arnold, Jr.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from John W. Arnold, Jr. to NHTSA (OCC 7296)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of May 5, 1992, concerning requirements for after-market seats. Your letter states that you had a vehicle accessories dealer, Orig. Equip. of San Angelo, install bucket seats in your 1992 Dodge Diesel Ram pickup. You state that, because the bucket seats seemed unsafe, you removed the bucket seats and reinstalled the original seats. You asked if the dealer was required to comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standards when installing the bucket seats.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment to a consumer unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable FMVSSs.

After the first purchase of a vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale, the only provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in Section 108(a) (2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Based on the allegations in your letter, it is possible that the accessories dealer that installed the aftermarket seats in your truck violated this provision of Federal law.

I have forwarded a copy of your letter to our Office of Enforcement for appropriate action. You may also wish to follow up by contacting NHTSA's Auto Safety Hotline at (800) 424-9393.

ID: nht81-3.22

DATE: 10/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 27, 1981, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80. Your letter asked whether an enclosed sample of a heater control identification plate met the requirements of section S5.2.2 of the standard. Your letter was primarily concerned about whether the color used for the hot extreme would be considered "red" within the meaning of that section.

The sample heater control identification plate enclosed with your letter identifies the hot and cold extremes of the temperature control by both words and color. At the left of the identification plate is the word "cold" on a blue background. At the right of the identification plate is the word "hot" on a background that appears by visual inspection to be orange.

Section S5.2.2 of Standard No. 101-80 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed system control and any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue . . . . [Emphasis added.]

The agency interprets section S5.2.2 to require that the colors red and blue be used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control only when color is the sole means by which the extreme positions are identified. If the words "hot" and "cold" are used to identify the extreme positions, color coding is a voluntary addition and the red and blue color requirements of section S5.2.2 do not apply.

Therefore, since the sample of the heater control identification plate enclosed with your letter identifies the extreme positions of the temperature control with the words "hot" and "cold," it meets the requirements of section S5.2.2 concerning that requirement regardless of whether the color used for the hot extreme would be considered "red" within the meaning of that section.

As to your question whether the color used for the hot extreme on the sample of the heater control identification plate is red, our visual inspection indicates that the color is orange rather than red. For guidance on the meaning of the color "red," we suggest that you refer to 49 CFR @ 172.407(d). That section, which is part of the Department of Transportation's regulations concerning hazardous materials, establishes color tolerances for various colors, including red. The section indicates how to obtain copies of the Department's color tolerance charts or where they may be inspected. While the charts are not referenced by Standard No. 101-80, they do provide guidance on the tolerances of various colors.

SINCERELY,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

July 27, 1981

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the red color to be used on the heater temperature control identification plate.

In FMVSS 101-80, section S5.2.2 requires in part that the hot extreme of the heater temperature control shall be identified by the color red; if color coding is used.

I am enclosing a sample of the heater control identification plate which we intend to use on 1982 model year Honda automobiles for your inspection. Please confirm that the color used for the hot extreme meets your requirements.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam4144

Dear Mr. Burns: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1986, to Edward Jettner of thi agency. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You asked about the effect of the certification requirements of Standard No. 205, *Glazing Materials*, on a product you are planning to manufacture. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.; You described your product as an aftermarket personal securit specialty glazing for automotive use. The glazing would be manufactured by adding a special plastic to the interior surface of a piece of new glazing. You explained that you are having testing conducted on your product and believe that it will pass all of the requirements set for glass-plastic glazing (item AS-14) in Standard No. 205. Your specific question concerns how the glazing is to be marked in accordance with S6 of the standard.; You explained that a new item of glazing is sent to you by an origina equipment glazing manufacturer, who has certified the glazing as complying with the standard and placed the necessary markings, required by S6 of the standard, on the glazing. You asked whether you should obliterate the OEM markings through sandblasting or other means and then apply your own identification or whether you should retain the OEM marking and add additional information to indicate that the glazing has been modified.; S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing manufacturers to mar glazing materials in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z-26. S6.1 further defines a prime glazing manufacturer as one 'who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.' In general, an item of glazing has only one prime glazing manufacturer, since usually one manufacturer performs the fabrication, lamination, or tempering of the glazing material. However, in the case of your product, we would consider both the original manufacturer of the glazing and your company, which laminates a plastic material to the glazing, to be prime glazing manufacturers. Both companies are performing a fundamental manufacturing operation, such as fabricating, laminating, or tempering, necessary to produce a completed item of glazing material, as compared to a situation where a company is performing a minor finishing operation, such as polishing, to an item of glazing that is fabricated, laminated, or tempered by another company.; As you pointed out in your letter, having two identifying marks on on item of glazing could lead to potential confusion as to which mark is correct. One of the purposes of the certification requirement is to assist in identifying the responsible manufacturer for the purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Thus, in the case of your product, the agency believes that it is important that both prime glazing manufacturers be identified on the glazing since, for example, there could be a noncompliance in the original glazing sent to you or there could be a noncompliance in the glazing as modified by your company. To avoid potential confusion about what item number applies to your finished product, we agree that adding wording to your marking indicating that the original glazing has been modified from one AS item to another will help avoid confusion.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3626

Dear Mr. Petler: This responds to your October 27, 1982, letter asking for permission t place the certification labels for certain motorcycles produced by Suzuki Motor Co. in locations not previously permitted by Part 567, *Certification*.; You request alternative locations, because some motorcycles ar equipped with fairings as standard equipment. These fairings would obscure the certification labels if the labels were to be installed in their required location. You propose, as an alternative, the installation of the labels on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side. In consideration of the problems of installing the certification labels in their normal positions on vehicles equipped with fairings and since the agency desires that these labels be easily readable, we grant your request to install your labels in these limited instances in the alternative locations that you suggested.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3627

Dear Mr. Petler: This responds to your October 27, 1982, letter asking for permission t place the certification labels for certain motorcycles produced by Suzuki Motor Co. in locations not previously permitted by Part 567, *Certification*.; You request alternative locations, because some motorcycles ar equipped with fairings as standard equipment. These fairings would obscure the certification labels if the labels were to be installed in their required location. You propose, as an alternative, the installation of the labels on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side. In consideration of the problems of installing the certification labels in their normal positions on vehicles equipped with fairings and since the agency desires that these labels be easily readable, we grant your request to install your labels in these limited instances in the alternative locations that you suggested.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4773

Dear Herr Westermann: This is in reply to your letter to Dr. Burgett o this agency with respect to 'multi bulb devices', specifically 'how the requirements for one-, two-, or three compartment lamps (lighted sections) as it is documented in FMVSS No. 108, Figure lb have to be interpreted. . . .' You have asked this question because 'Hella would like to equip motor vehicles with signalling devices which have --opposite to conventional lamps--a great number of replaceable miniature bulbs instead of e.g. one 32 cp bulb.' Your question assumes that Standard No. 108 is to be interpreted in a manner that equates the number of lighted sections with the number of bulbs providing the light. Finally, you have stated that the total area of the lamp is not larger than current one-compartment lamps. We regret the delay in responding to your letter, but we have recently completed rulemaking, begun in September l988, which is relevant to your question. On May 15, l990, an amendment to Standard No. 108 was published, effective December 1, l990, the effect of which is to restrict Figure 1b to replacement equipment. I enclose a copy of the amendment for your information. Your question relates to 'signalling devices' for new motor vehicles, and Figure 1b shows that, specifically, you refer to turn signal lamps. Beginning December l, l990, Standard No. 108 will specify two different standards for turn signal lamps. If the lamp is intended for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, and trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or more, it must be designed to conform to SAE Standard J1395 APR85 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles 2032 mm or More in Overall Width. SAE J1395 also provides that these lamps may be used on vehicles less than this width, except for passenger cars. If a motor vehicle is not equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE J1395, it must be equipped with a turn signal lamp designed to conform to SAE Standard J588 NOV84 Turn Signal Lamps for Use on Motor Vehicles Less Than 2032 mm in Overall Width. In the May l990 amendments, section S3 of Standard No. 108 was amended to add a definition for 'Multiple Compartment Lamp'. Such a lamp is 'a device which gives its indication by two or more separately lighted areas which are joined by one or more common parts, such as a housing or lens.' The multiple bulb device that you described appears to meet this definition. SAE J1395 establishes luminous intensity minima and maxima photometric requirements without reference to either compartments or lighted sections, and all that is required is for the lamp to comply at the individual test points specified. New section S5.1.1.31 clarifies that measurements of a multiple compartment turn signal lamp on vehicles to which SAE J1395 applies are to made for the entire lamp and not for the individual compartments. However, SAE J588 NOV84 continues to specify different minimum photometric requirements for one, two, and three 'lighted sections'. Because the SAE does not prescribe photometric requirements for more than three lighted sections, we have concluded that any device that contains more than three lighted sections need only comply with the requirements prescribed for three lighted sections. I hope that this is responsive to your request. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;