ID: nht88-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/20/88

FROM: GEORGE ZIOLO -- DOT PAPERWORK PROCESSOR

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: HEADLAMP COMBINATIONS - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION, FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/12/88 TO GEORGE ZIOLO FROM ERIKA Z JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108;

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

I assist graymarket automobile importers in conforming their vehicles.

Some foreign models come equipped with four headlamps two of which are 7" diameter and two 5 3/4" diameter.

My clients modify them by installing two Type 2D1 (7" dia) high & low beam units outboards, and two Type 1C1 (5 3/4" dia) high beam units inboards.

OVSC (NEF-32) rejects such installations because they are "nonconforming" "headlighting systems". It is my opinion that such rejection is without basis.

As I understand it, the FMVSS are "minimum standards". S4.1.1 confirms this by requiring that "...each vehicle...be equipped with at least the number of lamps...specified in Tables I and III,...."

My clients' installation of two Type 2D1 lamps satisfies the minimum requirement specified in Table III.

My clients' installation of two Type IC1 lamps in addition to the two Type 2D1 lamps is not counter to a "headlighting system" as I can find in the standard. In addition, S4.4 appears to permit such combination.

While it may have been necessary to ensure symmetry in headlighting systems combinations in motorcycles by way of S4.1.1.34, where Table III calls for only one lamp, such clarification relative to vehicles other than motorcycles is obviously not needed s ince symmetry in such will be natural.

I therefore kindly request that you determine whether or not FMVSS 108 allows lamp combinations as outlined above and advise me at your earliest convenience. The cited lamp combinations are desired by my clients for reasons of appearance. Also, modificat ion of such vehicles to delete the 2D1 (7") lamp in lieu of a 2C1 (5 3/4") lamp is costly, including replacement of the entire front grille.

Sincerely,

FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 52, NO 208 10/28/87 NHTSA 49 CFR PART 571 (DOCKERT 87-15 NOTICE 1) FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS, VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION (TEXT OMITTED)

ID: nht88-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/19/88

FROM: RAYMOND M. MOMBOISSE -- IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE GENERAL COUNSEL

TO: BWAYNE VANCE -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/18/88 FROM ERICA Z JONES TO RAYMOND M MOMBOISSE; REDBOOK A32; 571.7 (A) SECTION 101(3)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vance:

We request a waiver from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT), exempting the Hummer vehicle from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) when purchased directly from the manufacturer, AM Genera l Corporation. We are requesting a waiver on behalf of the Border Patrol.

The Hummer is a four-wheel drive vehicle currently manufactured by AM General Corporation for the U.S. Army. The Border Patrol intends to use Hummers to fulfill our traditional and expanded law enforcement missions, especially in the area of drug interd iction. The Hummer's high performance level will give Border Patrol a distinct advantage both in high-speed cross-country pursuits of drug or alien smugglers, and in routine patrolling.

Border Patrol's fleet of about 3,000 vehicles includes nearly 1,500 four-wheel drive vehicles. The Border Patrol currently has about five Hummers, and hopes to purchase approximately 100 Hummers over the next two years.

There are three main reasons why we are requesting a waiver from DOT. The main reason is that we wish to enhance the Hummer with a central tire inflation system (CTI) which can only be done by AM General Corporation as an assembly line item. Secondary reasons are that the Hummer will only be used on public highways approximately 30% of the time, and that buying directly from AM General Corporation will save about $ 5,000 per vehicle. Each reason will be developed below.

The major reason for requesting a waiver is that we need to modify the Hummers to include a CTI. The CTI is a patented feature only available as an assembly line item from AM General Corporation.

The CTI works simply and effectively. The CTI allows the driver to individually and quickly adjust tire pressures while traveling. The ability to adjust quickly tire pressures enhances

control over tire traction and therefore increases vehicle stability. For example, the tire pressures could be adjusted from 10 to 16 psi for typical off-road use over rough terrain. The tire pressures can also be raised from 20 to 24 psi for dirt roads to indirectly increase vehicle speed. The tire pressures can be increased to 32 psi for highway use.

The CTI is critical to carry out our law enforcement missions, both in terms of the types of terrain and conditions covered, and the range of topography within each type of terrain and conditions. Many of the areas patrolled by Border Patrol are inacces sible by commercially-available four-wheel drive vehicles. However, the performance characteristics of the Hummer as modified to include the CTI enables the Hummer to travel over these varied terrains, conditions and topographies.

The Border Patrol routinely patrols eight thousand miles of extremely varied types of terrain and conditions on the United States borders with Mexico and Canada. The terrain and conditions range from deserts to rocks to deep snow to forests.

In addition, the topography and conditions within each type of terrain vary enormously. For example, a typical mountain terrain may have greatly varying topographies or conditions requiring the following unique vehicle characteristics:

1. the ability to ascend or decent a 60% grade, including stopping and restarting on the grade;

2. the ability to traverse a 40% side slope;

3. the ability to negotiate a twenty-two inch vertical step from a complete stop;

4. the ability to ford a thirty inch stream of fresh water or salt water; and

5. the ability to clear the ground by eighteen inches with an approach angle of 60 degrees and a departure angle of 45 degrees.

The high performance characteristics of a fully-equipped Hummer with a payload of 3,500 pounds easily accommodate these varied terrains, conditions, and topographies.

The Hummers will only be used on public highways approximately 30% of the time. The Hummers will generally only be used on public highways to travel between stations and assigned duty areas. Thus, the Hummers use on public highways will be relatively mi nimal.

The Border Patrol's existing Hummers were first purchased by the U.S. Army pursuant to a contract and are in conformity with the specifications. Since the U.S. Army is now selling these vehicles to the Border Patrol, the vehicles are now used military v ehicles. Per 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571. 7(a) and (1), these Hummers are not subject to the DOT FMVSS.

However, purchasing the Hummers directly from the manufacturer will reduce the total cost by about $ 5,000 per vehicle. Vehicles purchased from the U.S. Army are more expensive because the amortized development costs are spread through the contract term . If we purchase the 100 Hummers we hope to purchase, then buying directly from the manufacturer will save the Border Patrol a total of approximately $ 500,000.

Please contact Elizabeth M. Jarrell at (202) 633-1260 upon receipt of our requests. Thank you.

ID: nht88-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/88

FROM: JERRY SWISHER -- COOPER TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY

TO: OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR OPINION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO JERRY SWISHER FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 109

TEXT: Gentlemen:

Cooper Tire & Rubber Company (Cooper) is a manufacturer of passenger, light truck and truck tires, which are sold and distributed to independent tire dealers through Cooper's own sales and distribution system and also sold to private brand customers f or distribution and sales through their own systems.

One of our private brand customers has inquired as to whether Cooper can manufacture and sell to them tires which would have:

1. No identification on the sidewall as to the name of the manufacturer or brand name owner, other than Cooper's assigned DOT letters. This tire would meet all the requirements of 49 CFR 571.109 S4.3(a) through (g) and 49 CFR 574.5; however, it woul d not have permanently molded on the upper sidewall the name "Cooper", the private brand owner's name, nor any other general trade name, trademark or identifying name. Each tire would have in the lower sidewall near the bead area, and visible after the tire was mounted, three different names, approximately one-quarter inch (1/4") in height, with each name appearing, for example, at the 2 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 10 o'clock positions on the tire. These names would be placed in such a manner that they woul d not interfere with the labeling or markings required under 49 CFR 571.109.

2. In the alternative, our private-brand customer makes the request as in 1. above, except that some generic connotation, such as, for example, "All Season" or "Performance" would also be molded on the upper sidewall.

The reason for the request from our private brand customer is that, in addition to its direct marketing, the private brand customer has two subsidiaries, and each of the three markets tires under a different name. They are seeking a generic tire with out prominent identification, but one which would contain all three names, thus making it marketable by any one or all three of the entities.

We request your opinion in reference to 1. and 2. above as to whether either would be in violation of, or in non-compliance with, 49 CFR Parts 571 and 574.

If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please feel free to contact me.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht88-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 24, 1988

FROM: ROBERT G. YORKS -- VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE BUSINESS GROUP, TRUCK-LITE

TO: KATHLEEN DEMETER -- ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL FOR GENERAL LAW, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 8-1-88, TO ROBERT G. YORKS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 108, REDBOOK A32; ALSO ATTACHED MEMO UNDATED, TO ROBERT G. YORKS, FROM KATHLEEN DEMETER

TEXT: Pursuant to your letter of April 28, 1988 (copy attached), we are rescinding our request for confidential treatment of this interpretation.

Please proceed with your analysis, without restriction.

Attachment

ID: nht88-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/26/88

FROM: A. J. ACKLEY -- MARTEK CORP.

TO: JOAN TILLGHMAN, LEGAL COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO A J ACKLEY; REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 125; LETTER DATED 06/10/88 FROM A J ACKLEY TO ERIKA Z JONES; OCC - 2151

TEXT: Dear Ms. Tillghman:

We are in the process of submitting a proposal to an account utilizing the red safety triangle. All of the elements of the device will follow the standards as set by the D.O.C. What we propose is using their logo in the center - see drawing. This woul d revolve (to eliminate a windshield) and add to the reflective quality of the device.

Do you see any legal problem with the concept?

Thank you.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/88

FROM: TEVES, ALFRED -- TEVES TECHNICAL SERVICE

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: BRAKE FLUID RESERVOIR DESIGN ACCORDING TO FMVSS 105 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BURKARD, EBNER, AND TEVES, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, AND MAY 24, 1988 LETTER FROM TEVES TO GREG ORY

TEXT: during his visit at NHTSA on May 17th, 1988 Mr. Ebner presented our new brake system to your experts.

We request an interpretation of S 5.4.2 (reservoir capacity) and S 5.3.1/b (Fluid level indicator) of FMVSS 105, with respect to the proposed brake fluid reservoir shown in the attachment.

Essential is the existence of an ancillary brake unit in this new brake system. This ancillary brake unit serves the brake circuits 1 and 2 directly.

Compared with a conventional reservoir the proposed brake fluid reservoir's distinctive feature is the exit for the ancillary unit.

This ancillary unit serves the brake circuits 1 and 2. When the brake pedal is released, the used brake fluid will flow back to the reservoir. This unit does not cause any additional fluid volume.

Teves interprets standard 105 S 5.4.2 and S 5.3.1/b) as follows:

1. The total minimum capacity of a reservoir shall be equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinder or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoir move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position.

2. Reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servi cing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston.

3. The total amount of the fluid shall be solely available for the brakes.

4. The ancillary unit shall not use brake fluid for other purposes than for the brake circuits.

5. A drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less then the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer ot to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, which ever is greater.

The ancillary unit does not diminish the built in safety features of the reservoir. In case of a circuit failure, volume 1 resp. volume 2 remains still available for the brakes and the fluid level indicator lamp gives a warning to the driver.

In case of a fluid leakage in the ancillary unit, the unit is switched off. The fluid level indicator lamp and additional a separate warning lamp gives a warning to the driver. The fluid volumes 1 and 2 remain in the reservoir and are fully usable fo r applying the brakes with the master cylinder.

Accordingly, we believe that the proposed brake fluid reservoir described in this letter and presented to your experts fulfils the requirements S 5.4.2 and S 5.3.1 (b) of FMVSS 105.

We ask that you confirm our interpretation at your earliest convenience.

FMVSS 105, S 5.4.2: V = V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4] V: GREATER OR EQUIVALENT TO FLUID DISPLACEMENT RESULTING WHEN ALL W/C MOVE FROM A NEW LINING POSITION TO A FULLY WORN LINING POSITION. MAX V[4] FLI V[3] V[1] V[2] BRAKE BRAKE ANCILLARY UNIT CIRCUIT 1 CIRCUIT 2 SERVICING BRAKE CIRCUIT 1+2

FMVSS 105, S 5.3.lb V[1] + V[3] >/- 0.25 (V[1] + V[3] + V[4]) V[2] + V[3] >/- 0.25 (V[2] + V[3] + V[4])

V[1] VOL. DISPLACEMENT EQUIVALENT TO A V[2] >/- FULL STROKE OF THE RELATED M/C-PISTON. TEVES MASTER CYLINDER RESERVOIR DESIGN ACCORDING TO FMVSS 105 3-34513-07

ID: nht88-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MAY 31, 1988

FROM: M. ARISAKA -- MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-10-88, TO M. ARISAKA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, STD 108

TEXT: We would like to know about the installation of an additional Rear Reflex Reflector (RR).

We are planning to install the additional Rear RR at the center portion of the rear face of cars in addition to present two Rear RRs required by FMVSS No. 108 Table III. (See attached drawing.)

The additional Rear RR will never impair the effectiveness of other lighting equipment required by FMVSS No. 108 Table III.

Kindly let us know your advice whether the above mentioned additional Rear RR is allowed or not.

We are looking forward to your reply.

Present two Rear RRs required by FMVSS No. 108 Table III

The Additional rear RR

ID: nht88-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GARRY GALLAGHER -- VICE PRESIDENT, METZELER MOTORCYCLE TIRE

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: FEBRUARY 11, 1988 LETTER FROM GALLAGHER TO COOK IS ATTACHED

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter of February 11, 1988 that requested "written confirmation and approval" to add the word "reinforced" to the sidewall of the Metzeler Motorcycle ME88 Marathon model motorcycle tire. As discussed below, it is our op inion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 does not prohibit the addition of the word "reinforced."

It is important to note that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S .C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a "self certification" process under which each manufacturer is required to certify that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Act prohibits the manufacture or sale of a noncomplying product.

Standard No. 119; New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars establishes performance and marking requirements for tires for use on multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, trailers, and motorcycles. Paragraph S6.5 of Standard No. 1 19 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewalls of each tire subject to this standard. The agency has frequently stated in past interpretations that the purpose of these labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a clear and s traightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. Standard No. 119 permits tire manufacturers to label additional information on the sidewall on the tires, provided that the additional information does not obscur e or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose. Assuming that the addition of the word "reinforced" is not made in such a way that it obscures or confuses the meaning of the required information, Standard No. 119 d oes not prohibit the addition of the word "reinforced" to the motorcycle tire sidewall.

I hope the information provided above will be useful to you and to Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. If there are any further questions or if you need more information, please do not hesitate to write to me.

ID: nht88-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ROBIN C. GELBURD -- MORRISON & FOERSTER

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JANUARY 12, 1988 LETTER FROM GELBURD TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This is a response to your letter of January 12, 1988, asking for NHTSA's evaluation of your client's product intended for use with an add-on child restraint system to "cushion and insulate the child." The product, a sample of which was enclosed with you r letter, is a fabric-covered rectangular seat-pad about 1/2 inch thick, surrounded at the top and both legs by a fabric-covered cushion. The product has a crotch-strap in the front, through which is inserted a belt that anchors on the legs of the recta ngle. On the back of this product are two clips apparently to be used for anchoring the seat pad to the child restraint system. You asked generally whether this product will "contravene or compromise" Federal safety standards, particularly Standard 213 , Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). Additionally, you asked us to "determine whether the product complies with relevant statutes and regulations within (NHTSA's) jurisdiction."

Your client's product falls within NHTSA's jurisdiction if it is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in @ 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). Section 102(4) defines "motor vehicle eq uipment" as:

. . . any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component, or as any accessory, or addition to the motor v ehicle.

In determining whether an item is an "accessory," the agency assesses two factors: first, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle; and second, whether the item is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. Applying these criteria to your client's seat-pad, we conclude that the seat-pad has no purpose other than use with a child restraint system and that it is intended to be used principally by consumers. Thus, the seat-pad would be an "a ccessory," and, therefore, is "motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of the Vehicle Safety Act.

The Vehicle Safety Act gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard 213, which applies to all new child restra int systems sold in this country. However, Standard 213 does not apply to aftermarket items for child restraint systems, such as your client's seat-pad. Hence, your client is not required to certify that this product complies with that standard before selling the seat-pad.

Although Standard 213 does not directly apply to your client's product, there are several statutory provisions of which you should be aware. First, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act states that:

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

There is an element of design incorporated in a child restraint system that may be affected by installing Hasbro's seat-pad. Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See 49 CFR @ 571.21 3, S7, referencing 49 CFR @ 571.302, S4. For your information, I enclose a copy of @ 571.302.)

If installing this seat-pad would denigrate the flammability resistance attributes of the child restraint system, then a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing this product would "render inoperative" a design element installed i n the child restraint system in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. The person who committed such an act would have violated @ 108(a)(2)(A), and would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $ 1000 for each @ 108 violation on each ch ild restraint system where this design element was "rendered inoperative."

Second, your client should know that it will be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer if it offers this product for sale. As a manufacturer, your client will be subject to the requirements of @@ 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. If your client or the agency determined that this seat-pad had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, your client would have to notify all product purchasers o f the defect, and either:

1. repair the seat-pad so that the defect is removed; or

2. replace the seat-pad with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

Your client, as the manufacturer, would have to bear the full expense of the notice-and-recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than eight years before the notice-and-recall campaign. Except in th e context of a defect proceeding, the agency does not determine the existence of safety-related defects. Therefore, we are unable to say whether your client's seat-pad might contain such a defect.

However, I wish to express my concern with one aspect of this product. The cushion that surrounds the seat pad is uninterrupted, and seems to have no provision for passing the child restraint system belt around or through the pad and cushion. If the in stallation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would render inoperative a Federally required element of design that applies to child restraint systems. That kind of action would violate @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act, and subject the offender to a civil penalty of $ 1000.00 for each violation.

Further, the seat pad has a crotch and lap belt assembly. I think it is possible that some parents may use the belt assembly on the seat-pad as a lap restraint for restraining a child's lower torso. Given that your client's seat-pad has a belt configur ation similar to that which a user might expect to see in a child restraint with a crotch strap and lap belt assembly, parents may assume that the belt meets the performance requirements that apply to belts installed on child restraint systems. For exam ple, a nonmetallic belt buckle (such as the buckle on the Hasbro sample) in a child restraint system must meet the temperature resistant specifications of the American Society for Testing and Materials "Standard Practice for Determination of Weight and S hape Changes in Plastic," D756-78. (49 CFR @ 571.213, S5.4.2.) There are load requirements for both the buckle assembly and the webbing in a lap belt restraint system. (49 CFR @ 571.213, S5.4.1.) There are several other performance requirements in Stand ards 209 and 213 applicable to belts, buckles, and materials used on belts installed in child restraint systems.

I am sure that your client will want to minimize the chances of a parent mistakenly using the seat-pad belt assembly as a torso restraint. Hasbro may choose to alert parents not to misuse the belt on the seat-pad. One possible means of alerting parents would be to affix a "warning label" to the product.

Please understand that this explanation is not an agency "recommendation". NHTSA does not offer its opinion as to the value or practicality of motor vehicles or equipment. When a potential motor vehicle or equipment manufacturer presents us with questio ns concerning a product, we use the information presented to explain how our statute and regulations may apply to such products. It is up to the manufacturer to assess the value and practicality of the product.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: TERRY E. QUINN -- CORPORATE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY HEHR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/16/86 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO EDWARD T FENNELL JR; LETTER DATED 09/18/87 FROM TERRY B QUINN TO NHTSA; OCC 1128

TEXT: Dear Mr. Quinn:

This responds to your letter of last year concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I regret the delay in our response. You explained that your company, Hehr International, is a prime glazing material manufacturer that tempers glazing material us ed in vehicular windows produced by your company and other companies. You stated that a prospective customer for your tempered glass does not wish to have your trademark appear on the glazing etch of its windows since it is a competitor of yours. You a sked whether a prime manufacturer may sell its tempered glass without its distinctive designation or trademark. As explained below, Standard No. 205 requires that a manufacturer's distinctive designation appear on the glass. However, if the glass in qu estion is marked with the prime manufacturer's DOT code mark, the designation marked on the glass may be the designation of the company that sells the glass, instead of the prime manufacturer.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205) sets forth the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. Paragraphs S6.1 and S6.2 of the standard specify that each "prime glazing material manufacturer" shall mark glazing materials ma nufactured by him in accordance with Section 6 of the American National Standard "Safety Code for Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z-26.1 - 1977, January 26, 1977 as supplemented by Z26.1a July 3, 1980 (ANS Z-26). Paragraph S6.1 defines a "prime glazing material manufacturer" as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. Your company is therefore a "prime glazing material manufacturer" of all glazing material that it tempers, and so you are subject to these marking requirements.

One of the requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26 is that a manufacturer mark its glazing with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." In addition to the marking requirements of S6 of ANS Z-26, S6.1 of Standard No. 205 requires prime glazing material man ufacturers to mark each piece of glazing they temper with an "AS" number, indicating that the glazing

meets all of the performance requirements set for that glazing item number. S6.2 of Standard No. 205 further requires a prime glazing manufacturer to mark each item of glazing material designed to be used in a specific vehicle with the symbol "DOT" a nd a manufacturer's code mark assigned by this agency.

Standard No. 205, through its incorporation of ANS Z-26, requires that all glazing be marked with a distinctive designation or trademark by the prime manufacturer. Therefore, your company cannot do what you asked to do in your letter; that is, sell glaz ing without any distinctive designation or trademark appearing on the glazing. However, NHTSA has previously concluded that the designation or trademark on the glazing need not be that of the prime glazing material manufacturer, if the glazing is marked with the prime manufacturer's DOT code mark. This is because NHTSA can easily and accurately identify the prime manufacturer from the DOT code mark, regardless of the distinctive designation or trademark that appears on the glazing. The agency needs t o be able to identify the prime glazing material manufacturer, since that is the party responsible for any defect or noncompliance recall campaigns.

When the agency can use the DOT code mark to identify the prime manufacturer, the agency does not need the distinctive designation or trademark appearing on the glazing to also identify the prime manufacturer. When a prime manufacturer sells glazing to another glazing company that sells the glazing to the public, the company selling the glazing to public has a legitimate competitive interest in having its logo appear on that glazing. In recognition of these factors, we said in an October 16, 1986 lett er to Mr. Edward T. Fennell, Jr. (copy enclosed) that Standard No. 205 permits a prime glazing material manufacturer to mark windshields with the logo of the company that was buying windshields from the prime manufacturer, with the permission of the purc hasing company.

Your company would be permitted to do the same for the glazing you are selling to a competitor, if your company's assigned DOT code mark appears on the glazing you are selling. If your company's assigned code mark does not appear on that glazing, or if the glazing company that is purchasing the glazing from you will not give you permission to use its logo, Standard No. 205 would require you to mark your company's distinctive designation or trademark on the glazing.

ENCLOSURE