NHTSA Interpretation File Search Overview Search Tool Request an Interpretation

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

NHTSA's Chief Counsel interprets the statutes that the agency administers and the standards and regulations that it issues. Members of the public may submit requests for interpretation, and the Chief Counsel will respond with a letter of interpretation. These interpretation letters look at the particular facts presented in the question and explain the agency’s opinion on how the law applies given those facts. These letters of interpretation are guidance documents. They do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. They are intended only to provide information to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies.

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

NHTSA makes its letters of interpretation available to the public on this webpage.

An interpretation letter represents the opinion of the Chief Counsel based on the facts of individual cases at the time the letter was written. While these letters may be helpful in determining how the agency might answer a question that another person has if that question is similar to a previously considered question, do not assume that a prior interpretation will necessarily apply to your situation.

Your facts may be sufficiently different from those presented in prior interpretations, such that the agency's answer to you might be different from the answer in the prior interpretation letter;
Your situation may be completely new to the agency and not addressed in an existing interpretation letter;
The agency's safety standards or regulations may have changed since the prior interpretation letter was written so that the agency's prior interpretation no longer applies; or
Some combination of the above, or other, factors.

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Before beginning a search, it’s important to understand how this online search works. Below we provide some examples of searches you can run. In some cases, the search results may include words similar to what you searched because it utilizes a fuzzy search algorithm.

Single word search

Example: car
Result: Any document containing that word.

Multiple word search

Example: car seat requirements
Result: Any document containing any of these words.

Connector word search

Example: car AND seat AND requirements
Result: Any document containing all of these words.

Note: Search operators such as AND or OR must be in all capital letters.

Phrase in double quotes

Example: "headlamp function"
Result: Any document with that phrase.

Conjunctive search

Example: functionally AND minima
Result: Any document with both of those words.

Wildcard

Example: headl*
Result: Any document with a word beginning with those letters (e.g., headlamp, headlight, headlamps).

Example: no*compl*
Result: Any document beginning with the letters “no” followed by the letters “compl” (e.g., noncompliance, non-complying).

Not

Example: headlamp NOT crash
Result: Any document containing the word “headlamp” and not the word “crash.”

Complex searches

You can combine search operators to write more targeted searches.

Note: The database does not currently support phrase searches with wildcards (e.g., “make* inoperative”).

Example: Headl* AND (supplement* OR auxiliary OR impair*)
Result: Any document containing words that are variants of “headlamp” (headlamp, headlights, etc.) and also containing a variant of “supplement” (supplement, supplemental, etc.) or “impair” (impair, impairment, etc.) or the word “auxiliary.”

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

Displaying 9681 - 9690 of 16490

Interpretations	Date

ID: nht71-5.47 Open DATE: 07/09/71 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA TO: Nance; Caston; Hefner and Green TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1971, concerning a marketing practice used by your client, Hale Trailer Salco, Inc., which consists of allowing purchasers of new trailers to specify that the trailer be delivered with either new or used tires. When used tires are chosen, you indicate that they are for the limited purpose of delivering the trailer to the purchaser, and are usually replaced by him with other tires. You further indicate that this practice is widespread in the particular industry. You ask in your letter whether the Tire Identification and Recordkeeping regulations (49 CFR Part 574) apply to the trailers that are sold equipped with used tires. The answer to this question is no. However, as you apparently realize, trailers sold with new tires that have been manufactured on or after May 22, 1971, are subject to the regulation. Your letter also discusses the possibility of future requirements for trailer tires, and suggests three possible courses of action under such requirements by which trailers might be sold with used tires. An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck, bus, motorcycle, and trailer tires was published October 14, 1967, (32 F.R. 14279) and a public meeting was held on the subject in June 1970. Since that time there has been no public issuance concerning this matter, and it is thus impossible to 2 send you the proposed rule you requested. The matter is under active consideration within the agency, however, and the proposed requirements should be issued in the near future. The proposals will solicit comments from interested persons, which will be considered before any final regulations are issued. Your comments and any additional suggestions you might have would be appreciated in response to these proposals. If you have additional questions, please feel free to write. NANCE, CASTON, HEFNER AND GREEN May 20, 1971 George Shifflett U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Bureau Re: Hale Trailer Sales, Inc. 4-122 CIR-185.1 This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of May 19, 1971, with regard to our above client. I would appreciate opinions as I will hereafter numerate, and for purposes of these opinions the following facts are partinent: For a number of years, and purely as a convenience to our client's customers they have purchased in hugh lots, primarily from wrecking yards, used tires at $ 1.00 per tire. Since these tires are purchased from wrecking yards as merely a convenience item in huge lots we do not know the history of any of the tires concerning whether or not it has been retreaded, and if so, how recently and by whom, nor do we know when the tire was produced or whether the tire is a "second" in the production sense. Obviously, the products which we manufacture cannot be transported with convenience, from place to place, or delivered to customers without the use of tires. Many of the farmers and stockmen which we sell these tires to (approximately 40-50%) use these tires merely to deliver the vehicle from our stores, our dealer's store or our construction sights, and then discard them replacing on the vehicle tires which they have purchased at reduced rates either from tire manufacturers giving farmers discounts, or some cooperatives which purchase tires in bulk at reduced rates for members. Therefore, there is not real interest on the part that the vehicle even be equipped with tires, and in many instances they are not willing to pay for tires. However, this factor does not overcome the progmatic problem of transporting and delivering the vehicle. This problem is very characteristic of this particular industry, and at no time is a charge made for these tires. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, the invoices are marked "less tire" and with a notation of "no charge" on the sales invoices. In addition, if Hale is required to put new tires on these vehicles, it will require on unnecessary increase in inventory of approximately $ 40,000.00 which is totally unnecessary for the sale of the vehicles and as stated above, are generally unwanted in 40-50% of the sales that are made. The other 50 - 60% of the sales that we make we are now furnishing tires and beginning May 22, 1971, will be complying with the record keeping 2 rules, even though, as you stated, there is no applicability to any tires manufactured prior to May 22, 1971. Presumably, we will continue to furnish these new tires and make appropriate charges for them, because in these instances the purchasers do not have the benefit of discount purchases, or they otherwise do desire to purchase tires with the vehicle and pay appropriate changes for them - we have no reason to suspect that we will not continue this in the future. Based upon the above described facts, I would appreciate the following opinions: 1. Does the law as it becomes effective May 22, 1971, require us to keep records with regard to complying therewith with regard to these used tires? 2. You indicated that trailers are not covered by pertinent aspects of the present law, but that they would be covered in the future, and you indicated you would forward me a copy of the law which will become effective some time in the future. Based upon this extended application to which you referred, and in order that we may make preparations necessary to comply therewith, will it be possible for us to furnish any used tires under the facts stated above with the use of any one or more of the following whether singularly or in grouping: a. Prepare a disclaimer certificate to deliver to the purchaser that the tires do not conform to the National Transportation Rules and are delivered merely as a convenience to the customer, and should not be used on any public road, street or highway; b. Some type of making on the tire to indicate that it is or may be a noncomplying tire. c. The purchase by Hale of only tires manufactured after May 22, 1971, which are used tires, with the accompanying use of disclaimers described in either "a" or "b", and/or the use of any other method of your suggestion that would avoid this unnecessary increase in inventory. As you know, I am totally unaware of what the new law will contain, since you have not had a chance to mail this to me. However, I thought that I would attempt to draft a request for opinion based upon our conversation in order to give you some additional time to consider and investigate this matter while I am reviewing this law as inacted, since the sizable outlay will have great implication on the economic structure of the corporation, 3 and will involve a great deal of planning and preparation, if a change is in fact necessary. I hope that I have stated all necessary facts in order to illicit these opinions; however, if you need any additional facts which you feel are pertinent, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you very much for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Kindest regards. Stephen F. Hefner cc: Mr. Stanley Hale
ID: ConductorsGeneralMotorsdrn Open Lou Carlin, Director Safety Regulations & Consumer Information General Motors North America Structure & Safety Integration Mail Code: 480 111 S56 30200 Mound Rd. Warren, MI 48090-9010 Dear Mr. Carlin: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-5) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205 March 2006 ________________________________________ Background A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.^[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less. Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number". Requests for Correction General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following: It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass. Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification". There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed. In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue. The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached. Discussion At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated: The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably. We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals. It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test. There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location. The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow". To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals. Conclusions The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection. Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test. The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors. ref:205 d.4/7/06 ^[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).	2006
ID: ConductorsPPGdrn Open John P. Banks, Director Glass Quality & Value Focus PPG Industries, Inc. Glass Technology Center P. O. Box 11472 Pittsburgh, PA11472 Dear Mr. Banks: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-6) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205."This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205 March 2006 ________________________________________ Background A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.^[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less. Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number". Requests for Correction General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following: It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass. Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification". There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed. In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue. The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached. Discussion At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated: The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably. We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals. It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test. There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location. The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow". To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals. Conclusions The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection. Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test. The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors. d.4/7/06 ref:205 ^[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).	2006
ID: ConductorsPilkingtondrn Open Joseph E. Poley, Senior Research Associate Automotive Glass Technology Pilkington North America, Inc. 2401 East Broadway Toledo, OH 43619 Dear Mr. Poley: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-4) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of conductors and terminals and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205 March 2006 ________________________________________ Background A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.^[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less. Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number". Requests for Correction General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following: It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass. Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification". There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed. In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue. The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached. Discussion At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated: The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably. We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals. It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test. There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location. The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow". To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals. Conclusions The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection. Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test. The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors. ref:205 d.4/7/06 ^[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).	2006
ID: ConductorsDaimlerChryslerdrn Open Stephan P. Speth, Director Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs DaimlerChrysler Corporation 800 Chrysler Drive CIMS 482-00-91 Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2757 Dear Mr. Speth: This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-3) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205 March 2006 ________________________________________ Background A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.^[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less. Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number". Requests for Correction General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following: It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass. Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification". There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed. In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue. The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached. Discussion At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number. We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated: The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably. We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals. It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test. There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location. The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow". To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals. Conclusions The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection. Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test. The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors. ref:205 d.4/7/06 ^[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).	2006
ID: 7571 Open Mr. Bob Bullard 12400 W. I-20 E. Odessa, TX 79765-9620 Dear Mr. Bullard: This responds to your letter to me, received on July 8, 1992, and your letter to Mr. Walter Myers of my staff, received on July 28, 1992. Both letters concerned the installation of used tires as original equipment on new utility trailers. Your second letter, more detailed than the first, referenced your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers of July 20, 1992 and asserted that of the more than 200,000 utility trailers manufactured annually, approximately 185,000 are shipped to dealers mounted with used tires. You expressed concern that with used tires installed, the rated load weight of those trailers would be inaccurate, and that used tires could fail, resulting in serious accidents. You also expressed concern that our regulation on the subject, 49 CFR 571.120, S5.1.3, is not widely known to trailer manufacturers and dealers or, if they do know about it, they do not fully understand it. You requested a simplified interpretation of the regulation, spelling out what manufacturers and dealers can and cannot do. You also asked about penalties for violation and who should be contacted for enforcement. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to prescribe safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act provides that no person may "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations. Trailers are classified as motor vehicles under the terms of the Safety Act, and tires are classified as motor vehicle equipment. Both, therefore, are subject to our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. S5.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed), provides that, except as provided in S5.1.3, each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars, or Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Therefore, unless a new trailer with tires comes within the exception set forth in S5.1.3, it must be equipped with new tires that are certified to comply with Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 119. S5.1.3 reads as follows: In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol. What this means is that the following five conditions must be met for a trailer manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new trailer (or for a dealer to sell a new trailer equipped with retreaded or used tires): 1. The purchaser must request such retreaded or used tires; 2. The used or retreaded tires must be installed at the trailer's place of manufacture; 3. The used or retreaded tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser; 4. The sum of the maximum load ratings of the used or retreaded tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle (required by S5.1.2); and 5. Used tires installed on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 and contain the DOT certification symbol on the sidewalls. The exception set forth in S5.1.3 accommodates a longstanding and widespread practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to vehicle manufacturers for installation on the new vehicles that they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. NHTSA's Office of Enforcement has responsibility for enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you wish to report possible noncompliances with Standard No. 120, you may contact Mr. Robert Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement, at this address. I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure Ref. #120 d:9/4/92	1992
ID: nht92-4.16 Open DATE: September 4, 1992 FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA TO: Bob Bullard TITLE: None ATTACHMT: Attached to 7/1/92 (EST) letter from Bob Bullard to Walter Myers (OCC-7571) TEXT: This responds to your letter to me, received on July 8, 1992, and your letter to Mr. Walter Myers of my staff received on July 28, 1992. Both letters concerned the installation of used tires as original equipment on new utility trailers. Your second letter, more detailed than the first, referenced your telephone conversation with Mr. Myers of July 20, 1992 and asserted that of the more than 200,000 utility trailers manufactured annually, approximately 185,000 are shipped to dealers mounted with used tires. You expressed concern that with used tires installed, the rated load weight of those trailers would be inaccurate, and that used tires could fail, resulting in serious accidents. You also expressed concern that our regulation on the subject, 49 CFR S571.120, S5.1.3, is not widely known to trailer manufacturers and dealers or, if they do know about it, they do not fully understand it. You requested a simplified interpretation of the regulation, spelling out what manufacturers and dealers can and cannot do. You also asked about penalties for violation and who should be contacted for enforcement. By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq. (Safety Act), gives the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the authority to prescribe safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a) (1)(A) of the Act provides that no person may "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Violations of Safety Act provisions are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation, with a maximum fine of $800,000 for a related series of violations. Trailers are classified as motor vehicles under the terms of the Safety Act, and tires are classified as motor vehicle equipment. Both, therefore, are subject to our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. S5.1.1 of safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles other Than Passenger Cars (copy enclosed), provides that, except as provided in S5.1.3, each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires--Passenger Cars, or Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Therefore, unless a new trailer with tires comes within the exception set forth in S5.1.3, it must be equipped with new tires that are certified to comply with Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 119. S5.1.3 reads as follows: In place of tires that meet the requirements of Standard 119, a truck, bus, or trailer may at the request of a purchaser be equipped at the place of manufacture of the vehicle with retreaded or used tires owned or leased by the purchaser, if the sum of the maximum load ratings meets the requirements of S5.1.2. Used tires employed under this provision must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard 119, as evidenced by the DOT symbol. What this means is that the following five conditions must be met for a trailer manufacturer to install retreaded or used tires on a new trailer (or for a dealer to sell a new trailer equipped with retreaded or used tires): 1. The purchaser must request such retreaded or used tires; 2. The used or retreaded tires must be installed at the trailer's place of manufacture; 3. The used or retreaded tires to be installed must be owned or leased by the purchaser; 4. The sum of the maximum load ratings of the used or retreaded tires on each axle must be not less than the gross axle weight rating of that axle (required by S5.1.2); and 5. Used tires installed on the vehicle must have been originally manufactured to comply with Standard No. 119 and contain the DOT certification symbol on the sidewalls. The exception set forth in S5.1.3 accommodates a longstanding and widespread practice in which fleet operators send tires from their tire banks to vehicle manufacturers for installation on the new vehicles that they buy. A tire bank is composed of tires with usable tread left on them which have been removed from vehicles no longer in service. NHTSA's Office of Enforcement has responsibility for enforcing the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If you wish to report possible noncompliances with Standard No. 120, you may contact Mr. Robert Hellmuth, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Office of Enforcement, at this address. I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. (Enclosure omitted)
ID: Roberts.1.wpd Open Mr. Mark Roberts Engineering Manager B&R Manufacturing Inc. 4600 Wyland Drive Elkhart, IN 46516 Dear Mr. Roberts: This responds to your letter asking whether it would be permissible for a member of the transit bus industry to replace a required passenger-side, flat unit magnification mirror installed on new buses having a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) with a 40" to 60"-radius convex mirror. As discussed in a conversation with Eric Stas of my staff, your company manufactures the aftermarket mirrors in question, and you seek confirmation of "What is [a] legal and an illegal mirror once the buses are in revenue service?" We would like to begin by explaining that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. One of the safety standards we have issued is FMVSS No. 111, "Rearview Mirrors" (49 CFR 571.111). FMVSS No. 111 sets different requirements for buses depending on the GVWR. Buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kg must meet the requirements of S7.1, which requires outside mirrors of unit magnification, each with not less than 323 cm² of reflective surface, installed with stable supports on both sides of the vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must install mirrors that comply with S7.1 in order to certify new buses covered under the standard. After the first sale of the vehicle, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable standard. 49 U.S.C. 30122. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition requires businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable standard. If NHTSA determines that a business has violated the "make inoperative" provision, it may assess a civil penalty in the amount of $5,000 per violation (not to exceed $15,000,000 in the aggregate). 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1). Thus, a manufacturer of new transit buses or other commercial entity repairing or modifying such buses could not replace a mirror complying with FMVSS No. 111 with another mirror that does not comply with the standard. However, it would be permissible to install your convex mirror on the passenger side of the bus as a supplement to a unit magnification mirror that meets all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 111. The "make inoperative" provision does not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in modifying his or her own vehicle. Consequently, NHTSA regulations do not prevent transit bus companies from making changes to their own used buses in their own garages or repair and maintenance facilities, even if they cause a vehicle to no longer comply with NHTSA safety standards. However, we urge vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including those required by FMVSS No. 111. Further, I note that the Departments Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. Under FMCSA regulations, there is a provision related to "rear-vision mirrors" at 49 CFR 393.80, which provides in relevant part: Every bus, truck, and truck tractor shall be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each side, firmly attached to the outside of the motor vehicle, and so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway to the rear, along both sides of the vehicle. All such regulated rear-vision mirrors and their replacements shall meet, as a minimum, the requirements of FMVSS No. 111 (49 CFR 571.111) in force at the time the vehicle was manufactured. 49 CFR 393.80(a). Thus, for vehicles covered under FMCSA regulations, there is an ongoing requirement for rear-vision mirrors that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 111. You or transit bus owners should contact Larry Minor of the FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 for further information about this regulation and the vehicles to which it applies. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you or transit bus owners should check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which the equipment will be sold or used regarding any such requirements. I hope you find this information useful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Jacqueline Glassman Chief Counsel ref:111 d.9/5/03	2003
ID: 86-5.45 Open TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA DATE: 11/14/86 FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA TO: Dr. Ernst TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION TEXT: Dr. Ernst Westfalische Metall Industrie, KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Federal Republic of Germany Dear Dr. Ernst: This is in reply to your letter of February 18, 1986, to August Burgett of this agency, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a center highmounted stop lamp that your firm has developed. Your design contains "a large number of integrated fixed miniature bulbs...a device with a small height and a large width." It has been reported to you by a prospective purchaser that the device may not be permissible because the height is too low in relation to the width, and because the use of fixed bulbs is prohibited. Standard No. 108 does not establish permissible dimensions for center high-mounted stop lamps, and a manufacturer may establish whatever height/width relationship it wishes, as long as the effective projected luminous area is not less than 4 1/2 square inches. However, the agency's research which substantiated the efficacy of the concept was limited to lamps of a rectangular design narrower than the one you contemplate. Some agency research has indicated that the width of the device should not be more than seven times its height. As for the issue of fixed or replaceable bulbs, this question arises in the context of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e) of Standard No. 108 which requires that the lamp "provide access for convenient replacement of the bulb without the use of special tools". This paragraph was written with the thought that center high-mounted stop lamps would be equipped with a single bulb or light source. If your lamp is sealed, so that the individual bulbs cannot be replaced in the event of burnout but is nevertheless designed so that the entire unit may be replaced with a new lamp without the use of special tools then your lamp design would appear to meet the intent of paragraph S4.1.1.41(e). I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Subject ACTION: Interpretation of Sealed Bulb Date Reply to Attn of Burgett 426-1351 From Barry Felrice Attn of Burgett Associate Administrator for Rulemaking To Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel The attached request for interpretation has been received from Hella. The issues are similar to those that have been raised in she request from Stanley Electric Company for interpretation relative so use of Light Emitting Diodes. If feasible, we suggest combining both interpretations into a single response. Attachment Mr. Dr. August Burgett c/o National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 USA K1 DrE/lb 7300 February 18, 1986 High Mounted Stop Lamps Dear Dr. Burgett, Long before High Mounted Stop Lamps became mandatory in the US, we were concerned with this subject. We now understand from Mercedes Germany that your agency does not approve of our design. In order to keep vision through the rear windshield as unimpaired as possible we have developed a design with reduced dimensions and, in particular, with a reduced height. This design makes use of special miniature bulbs with increased durability. These special bulbs have been used in a display, produced by our company, with excellent results for many years. They have a life of more than 2000 hours. We are sure that this is much more than the expected durability of a car. For safety, technical, and cost reasons we designed a HMS with a large number of integrated, fixed miniature bulbs. This enables us to realise a device with a small height and a large width. The attached drawings show this design. The objections of NHTSA to a design of this type, as reported by Mercedes, are 1. The relation Width: Height must be fixed within certain limits. If this is true, it would prohibit our design. 2. The use of fixed bulbs is prohibited, replaceable bulbs being obligatory. We cannot find any paragraph concerning these matters, neither in MVSS 108 nor in any other regulation or standard. Moreover, we argue that signal lamps with fixed bulbs in sealed units are known and available on the market. They are approved by US testhouses. Examples are described in the attached copies of catalogues. We should be grateful if you would kindly consider this matter and give us binding information. With best regards Westfalische Metal Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co. ppa. Dr. Ernst
ID: 22282 Open Mr. Anthony Breau T.M.C. of America 105 110^th Street, Suite 1 Treasure Island, FL 33706 Dear Mr. Breau: This is in response to your letter of October 19, 2000, asking for this agency's comments on your Mirrorcal Wiper mirror and wiper assembly. I note that your letter does not ask any specific questions as to whether your mirror and wiper assembly complies with Federal standards. Thus, I will give you some general information on the functions of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the responsibilities of motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. Congress has authorized NHTSA to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the law establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The Mirrorcal Wiper assembly may be subject to several NHTSA standards. The first is FMVSS No. 111, Rearview Mirrors (49 CFR '571.111). FMVSS No. 111 establishes performance and location requirements for the rearview mirrors in each new motor vehicle. Vehicle manufacturers must certify that each of their new vehicles complies with the applicable requirements in FMVSS No. 111. Please note that since FMVSS No. 111 applies to the completed new vehicle, it does not apply to mirrors sold and installed as aftermarket equipment. However, there are other Federal requirements that indirectly affect an aftermarket mirror system. Under NHTSA's enabling statute, the agency considers the mirror to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to our statute's requirements concerning the recall of products with safety-related defects. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. Since it operates off the same air compressor as the vehicle's air brakes, the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly also may affect a vehicle's compliance with FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). FMVSS No. 121 specifies performance and equipment requirements for braking systems on trucks, buses, and trailers that are equipped with air brake systems. FMVSS No. 121 does not prohibit the use of air pressure from the brake air supply for wiper assemblies such as the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly, but doing so could affect the vehicle's braking performance and, hence, compliance with the standard. Finally, since the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly operates off the air compressor, any hoses connected to the assembly could be subject to FMVSS No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), if they transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes, i.e., if a failure of a hose attached to the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this is the case, the hoses attached to the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly are "brake hoses" and must comply with FMVSS No. 106. However, if a check valve or other device is used to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the brake air pressure and would not be required to comply with FMVSS No. 106. Note that if the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly is installed as original equipment on a new vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer is required to certify that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs, including FMVSS Nos. 111, 121, and 106. If the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly is added to a previously-certified new vehicle, the person so modifying the vehicle would be required to certify that, as modified, the vehicle continues to comply with all FMVSSs. In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. ' 30122, which states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly make inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . ." If the installation of your mirror and wiper assembly resulted in a vehicle no longer complying with FMVSS No. 111, 121, or 106, then the manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that replaced the complying mirror with a noncomplying system would have made inoperative a device (the mirror system, air brakes, or brake hoses) installed in the vehicle in compliance with FMVSS No. 111, 121, or 106. The law permits NHTSA to impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation of the make-inoperative provision. Section 30122 does not establish any limitation on an individual vehicle owner's ability to modify his or her own vehicle. However, NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the safety of any system or device on their vehicles, including the safety of their rearview mirrors and brake systems. In addition, individual States are responsible for regulating the use of motor vehicles, and a State may have its own requirements with regard to the type of mirrors vehicles must have to be registered in that State. Finally, since the Mirrorcal Wiper assembly is designed for heavy vehicles, it may be subject to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations. The FMCSA is the agency within the Department of Transportation responsible for safety regulations concerning the operation of heavy trucks and buses in interstate commerce. I hope you find this information useful. If you have any specific questions as to whether your mirror and wiper assembly meets the requirements of FMVSS No. 111, 121, or 106, please feel free to contact Dion Casey in my office at (202) 366-2992, or the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration at (202) 366-2519. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Ref:111 d.7/16/01	2001

Request an Interpretation

You may email your request to Interpretations.NHTSA@dot.gov or send your request in hard copy to:

The Chief Counsel
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, W41-326
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20590

If you want to talk to someone at NHTSA about what a request for interpretation should include, call the Office of the Chief Counsel at 202-366-2992.

Please note that NHTSA’s response will be made available in this online database, and that the incoming interpretation request may also be made publicly available.

NHTSA Interpretation File Search

Overview

Understanding NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

Reasons interpretation letters in this database may not be applicable to your situation

Searching NHTSA’s Online Interpretation Files

More search options

Search Tool

NHTSA's Interpretation Files Search

ID: nht71-5.47

ID: ConductorsGeneralMotorsdrn

The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205

ID: ConductorsPPGdrn

The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205

ID: ConductorsPilkingtondrn

The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205

ID: ConductorsDaimlerChryslerdrn

The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205

ID: 7571

ID: nht92-4.16

ID: Roberts.1.wpd

ID: 86-5.45

ID: 22282

Request an Interpretation

How do I submit a request for interpretation?

The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205

The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205

The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205

The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205