ID: 11517WKM

Under Secretary
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Post Office Box 2944, Code No. 13030
Kuwait

Dear Mr. Under Secretary:

This responds to your letter of December 25, 1995, to the Department of Transportation asking about conformity certificates for tires. You stated that Ministerial Decree No. 3/82 of Kuwait states that every consignment of motor vehicle tires entering Kuwait should have a conformity certificate issued by an authorized body in the country of origin. You asked whether the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) is authorized to issue such certificates after testing in accordance with U. S. safety standards.

Please find enclosed a copy of a November 13, 1992, letter written to the Ministry by this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which we described in detail the requirements for certification of tires under U.S. law. The requirements described in that letter are still in effect.

Briefly stated, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers certify, normally based on testing and/or analysis, that their tires comply with all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Manufacturers must indicate their self-certification by marking the letters ADOT@ on the sidewalls of their tires. Under U. S. law, a manufacturer's self-certification is legally equivalent to a type approval under the law of a country whose conformance procedures rely upon type approval. We respectfully suggest that you recognize self-certification as a way of meeting Ministerial Decree No. 3/82, adjusting for the particulars of the U.S. system. There is precedent for regarding type approval and self-certification as equivalent in this context. Although neither the U.S. nor Kuwait are signatories to the UN/ECE AAgreement concerning the adoption of uniform technical prescriptions for wheeled vehicles, equipment and parts which can be fitted and/or be used on wheeled vehicles and the conditions for reciprocal recognition of approvals granted on the basis of these prescriptions@ (E/ECE/TRANS/505 Rev.2, 5 October 1995), we note that Article 1 of that agreement recognizes self-certification as an acceptable alternative to type approval.

All tires bearing the symbol ADOT@ are recognized by the United States as having been certified by the tire manufacturers as being in conformity with all applicable U.S. safety standards. There

is no provision in U.S. law for prior certification or approval by NHTSA, the U.S. agency responsible for the law=s implementation, or by any other entity. NHTSA monitors compliance with the standards by randomly purchasing tires in the retail market and testing them in accordance with test procedures specified in the standards. If a manufacturer's tires fail to meet applicable standards during NHTSA testing, the manufacturer is requested by NHTSA to provide any available test data and/or the results of any analysis underlying its certification. If the tires are ultimately determined to be in noncompliance with applicable standards, the manufacturer is required to conduct a notification and remedy campaign, known as a Arecall,@ to correct the problem at no cost to consumers.

In summary, U.S. law establishes a self-certification system in which tire manufacturers themselves certify that their tires comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, since conformance procedures for U.S. tire standards are based on self-certification instead of type approval, no independent body, governmental or nongovernmental, is authorized to issue conformity certificates with respect to U. S. tire safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any additional questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or FAX (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref: #109#119#574 d:3/19/96

ID: 11519DRN

Mr. Michael E. Kastner
Director of Government Relations
National Truck Equipment Association
1350 New York Avenue, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005-4797

Dear Mr. Kastner:

This responds to your letter asking three questions about NHTSA's March 14, 1995 final rule (60 FR 13639) converting English measurements in selected Federal motor vehicle safety standards to the metric system.

Your letter indicates that you believe that the March 1994 final rule's changes apply to all the standards and to Part 567, Certification. This impression is not correct. The final rule applies only to the standards specified in the final rule, not to all of NHTSA's regulations. In the future, NHTSA will undertake rulemaking to complete metrication of the standards and will provide guidance for metric conversion of the remaining standards at that time.

Your first question was: "Does this final rule in any way result in a requirement that the part 567 label have dual metric English measurements? Do current regulations allow dual measurements even if they are not yet required?"

Our answer is that the March 1995 final rule made no changes to Part 567 and dual measurements are not required on the label. If metrication is not specified for a particular safety standard or other NHTSA regulation, the manufacturer may voluntarily provide metric measurements. However, when a final rule specifying metric measurements for a NHTSA regulation is promulgated, measurements (metric or English) for that regulation must be provided in accordance with the final rule.

Your second question was: "Does the final rule require that metric measurements be listed first with the corresponding English measurement listed second?"

For the standards that were amended in the final rule, i.e., Standard No. 110, Tire selection and rims; Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars; and Standard No. 126, Truck-camper loading, the metric measurements must be listed first. The requirement does not apply to other standards.

Your third question was: "What metric and English abbreviations are acceptable to NHTSA? Should the abbreviations be in the plural or singular form? Should any acceptable abbreviations be in all capital letters?" You ask about conversions made by the rule in Standard No. 126, and abbreviations used in Standard No. 120's ATruck Example@ label.

The conversions (and abbreviations) made in Standards Nos. 126 and 120 apply only to the respective standards and are not generally applicable to all the standards. In the March 1995 final rule, NHTSA made the following comment concerning Standard No. 126:

[T]here should be no ambiguity in the metric units of measurement on labels that provide safety information to consumers. If unfamiliar terms are spelled out instead of abbreviated, there is less ambiguity and confusion. Thus, NHTSA is ... specifying the units of measurement as "Liters" and "cubic meters," as proposed, rather than the abbreviations "L" and "M3." (See 60 FR at 13644).

The required use of "liters" and "cubic meters" applies only to Standard No. 126 and is not applicable to other standards.

As for the Truck Example label in S5.3 of Standard No. 120, the words "kilograms" and "pounds" should be spelled out, whereas AkiloPascals@ is abbreviated as "kPa" and Aper square inch@ is abbreviated as "psi." This requirement applies only to the Standard No. 120 label and is not applicable to other standards.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. Harley Holt Director, Automotive Standards Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 1896 Preston White Drive Reston, VA 22090 ref:571 d:3/13/96

ID: 11521ZTV

Mr. Jerry Clay
Secretary-Treasurer
Best Fender Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 1258
Hwy 49, East
Mt. Pleasant, Texas 75455

Dear Mr. Clay:

We have received your letter of January 22, 1996, asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company has developed a fender for trailers which incorporates front and rear clearance lamps, and you would like our opinion whether, when the fender is installed on a trailer, the trailer will then comply with the clearance lamp location requirements of Standard No. 108.

You state, and the drawings which you enclose indicate, that "the clearance light is located midway up the wheel well radius of the fender, both front and rear, and as close to the outside lip radius of the fender as physically possible."

Table II of Standard No. 108 requires that clearance lamps be located "to indicate the overall width of the vehicle . . . and as near the top thereof as practicable." For the trailers shown in the drawings, where the outer edge of the fender is the widest part of the vehicle, your chosen location places the lamp in a location that indicates the overall width of the trailer. In that location, the lamp may also be "as near the top thereof as practicable." Indication of overall width is the primary requirement that must be met, as shown in the drawings. A location of the lamp on the trailer body where it might be closer to the top but would not indicate overall width as the fender lamps do would not be a conforming location under Table II.

We call your attention to the requirement that the trailer manufacturer must also certify that the clearance lamp as

installed on the fender meets the photometric requirements of SAE Standard J592e July 1972. These are incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office with whom you have previously spoken (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/4/96

ID: 11522ZTV

Mr. Michael Yu
Design Engineer
Gillig Corporation
Box 3008
Hayward, CA94540-3008

Dear Mr. Yu:

This responds to your letters of February 1 and 12, 1996, asking for interpretations of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to the rear lighting configuration depicted on a drawing that you enclosed with each letter.

In your letter of February 1, you are concerned with the four lamps designated "1", "2", "3", and "4". They are all amber, and activated when the brake pedal is applied. Lamps 1 and 2 flash alternatively with lamps 3 and 4. The lamps are extinguished when the brakes are released.

The drawing you enclosed show that these are not lamps that are required by Standard No. 108, but supplemental lighting equipment. Paragraph S5.5.10 of Standard No. 108 specifies the required lamps that may flash in use, and S5.5.10(d) clarifies that "all other lamps shall be steady burning." This means that supplemental lighting equipment added by the manufacturer or dealer before a vehicle's first sale must be steady burning. I would also like to call your attention to paragraph S5.1.3 of Standard No. 108; supplemental lighting equipment is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Even if paragraph S5.5.10 permitted supplemental lighting equipment to flash, we believe that your system would impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. The four lamps are activated simultaneously with the stop lamps, but are of a different color and flash in use. When confronted with an array of red steady burning lamps and amber flashing ones, there is a strong likelihood of at least momentary confusion in a driver following the bus.

In your letter of February 12, your drawing shows two amber lamps mounted approximately at the upper right and left corners of the vehicle. They, too, flash when the brake pedalis depressed. This appears to be a variation of the four-lamp system discussed above, and for the same reasons we consider this system also to be prohibited by S5.5.10(d).

This also responds to Gillig's telephone call of February 13 to Taylor Vinson in which it asked for NHTSA's views on systems of flashing red lamps instead of amber ones. Additional red lamps that are activated simultaneously with the stop lamps appear to serve as a supplemental stop lamp system. However, under S5.5.10(d), they, too, must be steady burning. If Gillig wishes to configure the systems described in this letter to be both red and steady burning, we would not view such a configuration as creating an impairment of the effectiveness of other rear lighting equipment within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (phone: 202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108 d:3/34/96

ID: 11523.JEG

Mr. Richard B. Gifford
1460 South Macon Street
Aurora, CO 80012

Dear Mr. Gifford:

This responds to your letter concerning air bags. I apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that you are considering the purchase of a new car with air bags, and that it is your "intent to remove them for safety reasons." You asked whether the dealer can legally remove the air bags, or whether you would need to do it yourself. As discussed below, Federal law prohibits dealers from disconnecting air bags, but does not prohibit an owner from disconnecting his or her air bag.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment, specifies requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes. (Standard No. 208) Safety belts and air bags are installed as means of complying with that standard.

One provision of Federal law also forbids a vehicle dealer or other commercial entity to remove or deactivate safety equipment, such as air bags, installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Title 49 U.S.C., section 30122, provides:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

As air bags are installed to comply with Standard 208, a dealer (or other commercial entity) may not make it "inoperative."

This prohibition does not apply to modifications made by persons to their own vehicles. Such modifications may, however, be covered by State laws. Regardless of legal considerations, we discourage persons from attempting to deactivate an air bag on general safety grounds, and especially if they do not have expertise concerning how to do it safely.

You state that you and your wife use your seat belts at all times, and that is the most important way persons can protect themselves while driving. Safety belts keep you in place so that your head, face, and chest are less likely to strike the steering wheel, windshield, dashboard, or the vehicle's interior frame, and they prevent you and other occupants from being thrown into each other or ejected from the vehicle.

However, we are concerned that you wish to disconnect your air bags. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection. An air bag provides supplemental protection for a person during a frontal crash, distributing crash loads over a much wider area of a person's body.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record, particularly in reducing fatalities, NHTSA is aware that current air bag designs can have adverse effects. These adverse effects have included serious injuries and even some fatalities to occupants in very close proximity to the air bag at time of deployment. I have enclosed a copy of a notice, published by NHTSA in November 1995, which discusses situations where these adverse effects may occur.

While you have obviously paid a great deal of attention to the trade-offs presented by air bags, we urge you to consider the following data before removing your air bags. Air bags have been and continue to be an effective, life-saving technology. Numerous evaluations of their effectiveness have been conducted. All conclude that air bags are approximately 30 percent effective in reducing fatalities in pure frontal crashes. Looking at all crashes, air bags reduce fatalities by about 10 percent. The available data also indicate that air bags reduce the likelihood of injury to an occupant's head, neck, face, chest, and abdomen, injuries which are particularly likely to be life threatening.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:vsa d:5/16/96

ID: 11524WKM

Mr. Herb Wolff
Sam's International Trade U.S.A.
4501 North Dixie Highway
Oakland Park, FL 33334

Dear Mr. Wolff:

This responds to your letter of January 31, 1996, to Walter Myers of my staff in which you ask whether the terms "textile" or "generic textile" are sufficient descriptions of tire cord composition to comply with paragraph S6.3.2(c) of Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 117, Retreaded pneumatic tires. As discussed below, the answer is no.

You explain in your letter that you intend to import a line of bead-to-bead remanufactured tires from England, on which the cord description on the tires reads:

Plies tread 2 steel & 2 textile sidewall 1 textile

or

Plies tread 2 steel & 2 organic textile sidewall 1 organic textile

You state that the purpose of that phraseology is to be descriptive, yet sufficiently generic to use with sidewall construction and tread plies of rayon, nylon, or polyester. You include some tracings from the sidewalls of similarly-labeled remolded tires on which the word "textile" is also used.

The labeling requirement for pneumatic tires is established by section 30123 of Title 49, U.S. Code. That section requires that all tires be permanently and conspicuously labeled with certain safety information, including "the composition of material used in the ply of the tire." That requirement is implemented in paragraph S6.3.2(c) of FMVSS No. 117, which specifies that all tires be labeled with:

(c) The generic name of each cord material used in the plies (both sidewall and tread area) of the tire.

The word "textile" is a generic term that applies to the gamut of woven or knitted fabrics. It is so general that, if not actually misleading, it is noninformative in that it does not distinguish between such natural fabrics or fibers as cotton, wool, and silk, and synthetic fibers such as polyester and nylon, all of which have totally different characteristics. Although tire cords are made from some of the same synthetic materials as textiles, such as nylon and rayon, other textiles such as silk and cotton are not suitable for tire cords. Accordingly, since textiles are commonly understood to be woven or knitted fabrics, merely labeling Atextile@ to describe tire cords does not sufficiently distinguish between tire cord materials and their different characteristics.

Tire cords are made from many different materials such as rayon, nylon, polyester, steel, glass, and various other polyamides, each of which has different composition and different performance characteristics. The many different cord materials and their many different characteristics enable a tire to be specially geared to its anticipated use. Thus, the specific generic composition, such as nylon, rayon, steel, etc., rather than merely Atextile,@ must be labeled on tires to enable tire purchasers to select the characteristics they want in a given tire.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact this office at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref: #109#117#119 d:3/29/96

ID: 11525ZTV

Ms. Carol I. Morton
Administrative Assistant
Equipment and Standards Review Unit
Washington State Patrol
P.O. Box 42635
Olympia, Washington 98504-2635

Dear Ms. Morton:

We have received your letter of January 31, 1996, expressing your understanding that States "can allow the use" of daytime running lamps (DRLs), but cannot require them to be on vehicles. You ask for information on this subject.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108) permits, but does not require, motor vehicles to be equipped with DRLs (see paragraph S5.5.11). The effect of the preemptive provisions of Title 49 United States Code section 30103(b)(1) is that when a Federal DRL standard is in effect, a State is permitted to have a DRL standard only if it is identical to the Federal one. Thus, a State may not require that vehicles within its jurisdiction have DRLs, nor can it forbid them. States must allow DRLs.

There is one exception to this. Under Section 30103(b)(1), a State may prescribe "a standard for a motor vehicle . . . obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required" by a Federal safety standard. We interpret this as allowing a State to require State-owned vehicles to be equipped with DRLs.

If you have further questions on this topic, you may discuss them with Taylor Vinson, with whom you have talked previously. Our number is 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:108#SEC.30103(b) ref:3/14/96

ID: 11526DRN

Michael A. Tonelli, Esq.
Barr, Murman, Tonelli, Herzfeld & Rubin
First of America Plaza
201 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 901
Tampa, FL 33672-0118

Dear Mr. Tonelli:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Charles Gauthier, formerly of this agency, asking whether multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) must meet Federal standards for passenger cars. We have addressed this question in a December 26, 1995 letter to Jane Thorntorn Mastrucci, Esq. A copy of our letter to Ms. Mastrucci is enclosed.

You also asked for the current "Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards [FMVSSs] regarding student transportation" and a copy of the current Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 17 "Pupil Transportation Safety." Due to the volume of the material, we are unable to provide copies of the school bus FMVSSs. However, they are readily available at Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571. For your reference, I have enclosed an information sheet that describes ways to obtain the material. Enclosed is a copy of Guideline No. 17, which is set forth at 23 CFR '1204.4.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:vsa#571.3 d:3/4/96

ID: 11537.WKM

Mr. Francis R. Laux
Manager, Safety Standards
Safety Affairs & Regulations
General Motors Corporation
1660 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Laux:

This responds to your letter to me in which you ask whether the back door glazing on two models of General Motors vehicles would be excluded from the definition of "back door" in the September 28, 1995 amendments to Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The answer is yes as to the glazing half of both door designs.

The agency published a final rule on September 28, 1995, (60 FR 50124) extending the requirements of FMVSS No. 206 to the back doors of passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV), if so equipped, with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or less. Exclusions from the definition of "back door," however, include:

[A] door or window composed entirely of glazing material whose latches and/or hinges are attached directly onto the glazing material (emphasis added).

Your questions address the meaning of the emphasized words as applied to the two MPV models in question.

Both MPV models you refer to are equipped with 2-part back doors. The top halves of the doors are composed of glazing that swings outward and upward. The bottom halves are all-metal tailgates that swing outward and downward. On one model the hinges are attached to the glazing by use of mechanical fasteners that are separated from actual contact with the glazing by a washer. The upper part of the door on the other model is composed of glazing, but the hinges are imbedded in the glazing, then covered by a decorative composite material that you refer to as ARIM@ (reaction injection molding). This door is also equipped with a high- mounted stop lamp centered at the top of the door.

You ask whether both windows would be deemed composed "entirely" of glazing material when both contain electric defroster elements and as pointed out above, one contains decorative surround and a high-mounted stop lamp. You suggest that "the agency's intent is to exempt those doors or windows whose latches and/or hinges are attached to glazing material which is the principal structural component of the door or window, rather than to mandate compliance of doors and windows that are not `composed entirely of glazing material'" (emphasis in original).

In excluding doors and windows "composed entirely of glazing material," the agency was referring to the very type doors you describe, that is, where the entire door itself is glazing as opposed to window glazing that is mounted in and framed by a metal door. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, a door composed only of glazing, be it glass, plastic, or glass/plastic, could be expected to fail in a crash before the latches or hinges would fail. In that case, it would be meaningless to require the latches and hinges to comply with the standard. It is immaterial that the glazing might contain defrosting elements, decorative material, or a high-mounted stop lamp, since those components do not strengthen the glazing. Thus, as you correctly pointed out in your letter, the agency intended to exclude from the requirements of the standard those doors and windows where glazing is the "principal structural component of the door or window."

Your other concern was whether the hinges on your upper door halves were attached "directly onto" the glazing. With respect to the model on which the door half is attached by mechanical fasteners separated from the glazing by a washer, the agency would still consider those hinges attached "directly onto" the glazing. It could reasonably be expected that the bare metal of the hinge would be separated from the bare glazing of the door or window by a washer, gasket, or some other cushioning material. The same consideration would apply to the model in which the hinge is embedded into the glazing and covered with decorative material for aesthetic purposes. Either way, the hinges are mounted directly to the glazing, as opposed to being attached to the metal frame into which the glazing is mounted. Accordingly, the agency considers the upper halves of both door designs as being composed entirely of glazing, and the hinges of both are mounted directly onto the glazing. Both doors, therefore, are excluded from the requirements of the standard.

The above discussion does not apply to the bottom halves of the doors in question. Since those doors are metal doors, the latches and hinges on them must comply with the requirements of the standard.

If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:206 d:5/6/96

ID: 11538ZTV

Mr. Gene Noll
Buyer
Fitz Auto Parts, Inc.
24000 Highway 9
Woodinville, WA 98072-9753

Dear Mr. Noll:

This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1996, to Taylor Vinson of this Office. Your company's business is "the buying and selling of used auto parts". You would like to buy and import Canadian vehicles to be "dismantled for parts and then destroyed." You state that none of these vehicles "will be resold or have a chance of being put back on the road as a whole vehicle." You have asked for our opinion on how you might do this under the importation regulations that this agency administers.

Our laws do not address the question of the importation of a nonconforming motor vehicle for salvage purposes. There is no specific provision, therefore, that will permit you to do so. However, under our interpretations, a vehicle without an engine and transmission may be considered an assemblage of motor vehicle parts, rather than a motor vehicle. The assemblage can be imported as motor vehicle equipment. But it would be better to forego importation of the engines and transmissions in order to avoid creating the impression with Customs, E.P.A., and NHTSA that the engines and transmissions will be reinstalled, and that motor vehicles are, in fact, being imported without the intent of conforming them.

However, even under this scenario, certain equipment installed on a vehicle cannot be legally imported unless the equipment meets applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This equipment includes brake hoses, lamps and reflectors, tires, rims for vehicles other than passenger, brake fluid, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. Generally, conformance of these items is indicated by the presence of a "DOT" symbol on them (lighting equipment may have "SAE" instead). Any of the items listed above that do not bear these symbols must be removed from a motorless vehicle before the assemblage may be imported.

If you have any further questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:591 d:2/27/96