ID: nht87-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wil de Groot -- President, Exoticars of Hunterdon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/24/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Wil de Groot

TEXT:

Mr. Wil de Groot President Exoticars of Hunterdon 6 Washington Street Frenchtown, NJ 08825

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1987, with respect to your further questions on Federal regulation of kit cars.

You have presented the following facts: the engine, transmission, final drive, axles, suspension, steering, brakes, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harness, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switch buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks, impact absorbing bumper supports, and other unnamed components, all previously used on a vehicle meeting Federal safety standards would be retained for use with a new body of your own manufacture.

Your first choice is to install these items upon a new chassis of your own manufacture, and to supply the vehicle to a purchaser fully assembled. This is what must be met under these circumstances: when a new body is mounted upon a new chassis, the resul ting vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable upon the date of its assembly, even if the parts that you named are used. Further, the assembler must certify that the vehicle complies with safety standards. There is no legal obligation to use new parts in order to certify compliance with the standards. The assembler is regarded as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, and must notify owners and remedy noncompliances with the safety standards or safety related defects shou ld they occur, in accordance with Federal law and regulations.

If you supply all parts, but do not complete assembly of the vehicle, we should regard you nevertheless as its manufacturer and subject to the requirements stated above. However, if you do not supply all parts, the question of whether you would be regard ed as the manufacturer would necessarily depend upon the parts that the purchaser must supply in order to compete assembly.

You have also stated your second choice: that the new body would be mounted upon the original chassis, modified to accept it. In this circumstance, when a new body is mounted upon a used chassis, the resulting vehicle is not subject to Federal motor vehi cle standards that apply to new vehicles, and there is no certification obligation. Nevertheless, its assembler is a "manufacturer" under federal law and responsible for notification of owners and remedy of any safety related defects that may occur in th e product. Further, if the assembler is the person responsible for removing the old body, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet the standards that originally applied to the vehicle which might have been affected by removal of the old body. For example, if the body of a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 is removed, compliance with a number of standards such as those covering glazing, lighting, and windshield retention is affected and the reassembled vehicle must then meet the standards that were in effect in 1974. But, standards covering such things as accelerator control systems and brake hoses would not appear to be affected by the disassembly of the original vehicle, and the assembler is under no obligation to ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet those standards.

If the used-chassis vehicle is supplied partially disassembled, but all parts are supplied, we would nevertheless regard the supplier as subject to all obligations discussed above, assuming that he was the person responsible for removal of the old body. If all parts are not supplied, the answer remains as before: whether the supplier is a "manufacturer" depends upon the parts that the purchase must provide.

Finally, you have asked, "if actual crash tests. . .have to be made what is the cost and where is this done?" There is no express legal requirement that a manufacturer of new motor vehicles conduct crash tests in order to certify compliance with those st andards where compliance can be demonstrated through barrier impacts. A manufacturer is required to exercise due care to ensure that his vehicle, if crashed, would meet the performance requirements of those standards incorporating barrier impact test pro cedures, but his certification may be based upon computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematical calculations, etc. We cannot advise you as to the cost of such tests, and suggest you write the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) for in formation on facilities that perform them. MVMA's address is 1620 I Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

MS. ERIKA Z. JONES U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

4.2.1987

Dear Ms. Jones,

Thank you for your reply of Feb. 24 1987 to my letter of January 12, 1987 regarding regulations for home built or car kits.

What we have in mind is to take, for example, a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 (federal version) remove the engine, transmission, final drive, suspension, steering, brakes, etc. and all safety and emission related items and after refurbishing these parts, install them on a new chassis with a new body of our own (U.S.) manufacture. We are familiar with the process of bringing a gray market car into compliance with Federal regulations, having gone through the process and wondering if this same process, complete with all applicable engineering data, photo's and paperwork could somehow be applied to a limited production rebodied and rechassied vehicle without the expense of crashing cars into a wall.

If actual crash tests have to be made what is the cost and where is this done?

The following are the specifics that I hope will allow you to give me the answers I am looking for,:

-Chassis- New made in U.S.A. (first choice) -Chassis- Used original chassis but modified to accept new body (second choice)

-Old parts used- Engine, transmission, final drive, axles, brakes, steering, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harnesses, seats, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switc h buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks. Impact absorbing bumper supports, etc.

-Suppled to Consumer fully assembled- (first choice) -Supplied partially disassembled- all parts supplied (second choice) -Supplied partially disassembled- all parts not supplied (third choice)

-Parts- Used would come from federal version of imported cars or domestic cars. All parts including new would meet D.O.T. & E.P.A. specifications.

Thank you in advance, I hope you can help us.

Sincerely,

Wil de Groot, President

ID: nht87-2.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/01/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: R. O. Sornson -- Director, Regulatory Research and Analysis, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R.O. Sornson Director Regulatory Research and Analysis Chrysler Corporation P.O. Box 1919 Detroit, MI 48288

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the test procedure used in the latchplate access test of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I regret the delay in our response.

You specifically asked for an interpretation of the requirement of S10.6 of the standard that a vehicle's seat shall be placed "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining whether a vehicle meets the latchplate reach requirements of S7.4.4 o f the standard. You asked whether in conducting the test, Chrysler should move a manually adjusted bench or bucket seat to its forward seat track "stop" and move a power bench or bucket seat to its "full forward" and "full down" position. As explained be low, both a manually adjusted seat and a power adjusted seat should be moved to its full forward position or full forward seat track stop. However, S7.4.4 of the standard does not currently address how the seat is to be vertically adjusted. The agency ha s recently received a petition from the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association asking the agency to address the general issue of positioning adjustable power seats for the purposes of Standard No. 208. If the petition is granted, we will address the iss ue of vertical placement of the seat for the purposes of S7.4.4. In the interim, the agency will conduct its compliance testing for S7.4.4 in the following manner. The agency will first place the seat in the vertical adjustment position used by the manuf acturer in its certification tests. Then the agency will move the seat horizontally to its full forward position.

You noted that several of the comfort and convenience requirements of the standard specifically provide that a seat is to be moved to its full forward and full down position. For example, S7.4.3, which sets out the belt contact force requirements, and S7 .4.5, which sets out the safety belt retraction requirements, specifically provide that the seat is to be tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 of the standard. In turn, S8.1.2 provides that adjustable seats that are capable of vertical adjustment are to be placed in their lowest position.

However, the latchplate access requirement of S7.4.4 of the standard does not have a reference to positioning a seat in accordance with S8.1.2 of the standard. Instead, it specifies only that the seat shall be placed in its full forward adjustment positi on. Thus, in determining a seat's full forward position for the purposes of S7.4.4, the agency will follow the following procedure. Since the standard does not prescribe a vertical position for the seat, the agency will use the vertical position used by the manufacturer in its certification tests. The agency will then move a power seat horizontally to its full forward position.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Chrysler Corporation requests confirmation of our interpretation of the requirements of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Paragraph S10.6 prescribes that the seat shall be "in its forwardmost adjustment position" when determining th e seat belt latchplate reach envelopes. Based on our review of Standard 208, we interpret "forwardmost adjustment position" to mean that a manually adjustable bench or bucket seat is moved to the forward seat track "stop" and in similar manner a power be nch or bucket seat is moved to its "full forward" position while in the "full down" position. These adjustment procedures provide a consistent test dummy location which we believe is the NHTSA's intent for conducting the prescribed tests for both manual and power seats.

The above interpretation of "forwardmost adjustment" position was discussed with Mr. Edward Jettner of the Office of Vehicle Standards. He concurred with our interpretation, but suggested that we seek confirmation of it.

We believe that the above interpretation is correct based on other discussions of seat adjustment in the standards. Paragraph S7.4.3 of MVSS 208 provides:

S7.4.3, Belt Contact Force, is tested in accordance with S10.7 which, in turn, requires that the user "--position the test dummy in the vehicle in accordance with -- S10.1 or S10.2 and -- S8.1.2 and S8.1.3." S8.1.2 requires that "adjustable seats are -- midway between forwardmost and rearmost positions, and if separately adjustable in a vertical direction, are at the lowest position; (underlined for emphasis)

Paragraph S.7.4.5 adds:

S7.4.5, Retraction, is also "tested under the conditions of S8.1.2 --."

Paragraph S4.3.2 of MVSS 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, similarly provides at a power seat is to be adjusted to full down position:

S4.3.2 Seat belt anchorages for the upper torso portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. With the seat in its full rearward and downward position . . . . (underlined for emphasis).

From these references, we conclude that for consistency in positioning the test dummy for purposes of paragraph S10.6 of MVSS 208, a power seat is adjusted to the forwardmost "full downward" position and a manual seat track is adjusted to the forwardmost position. We would appreciate your confirmation of our interpretation at the earliest possible date.

Sincerely,

R.O. Sornson

ID: nht87-2.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 7, 1987

FROM: LACY H. THORNBURG -- ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; EDWIN M. SPEAS, JR. -- SPECIAL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MEMO DATED 2-19-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES-NHTSA, TO EDWIN SPEARS JR., REDBOOK A31

TEXT: As suggested by Deirere Hom, I am writing to seek assistance with an issue facing some public school systems in North Carolina.

Some school systems have purchased vans that do not meet federal schoolbus specifications. These vans are used primarily to transport teachers and administrators, but are also used from time to time to transport students to extracurricular activities .

I am familiar with the definitions of "schoolbus" in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14) and in 49 C.F.R. @ 571.3, but am uncertain about how these definitions apply to the circumstance described above. My specific questions are:

1. Are school systems prohibited by federal law from using vans that do not meet federal school bus standards to transport students to extracurricular activities on a regular basis or on an occasional basis?

2. Has the Secretary adopted any regulations that define the term "significantly" as it appears in 15 U.S.C. @ 1391 (14)?

Any assistance you could give me with these questions would be appreciated.

ID: nht87-2.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JULY 7, 1987

FROM: EAST, MORRIS -- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR-LOUISIANA BUREAU OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MARCH 16, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO EAST

TEXT: This request for an opinion concerns the interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to school buses.

One of our local school systems has requested an opinion with respect to the changing of a school bus body from one chassis frame to another chassis frame. As we understand it, they intent to remove the bus body from an existing chassis and and place tha t body onto a new chassis. The work would be performed by the local school system's school bus maintenance shop. The shop has the facilities to perform most bus body repairs. We fully understand that Congress has placed the responsibility for overseei ng the manufacture of school buses with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Therefore, we are asking for an opinion from your office concerning this matter. Specifically we need an answer to the following questions:

1. Is is permissible under the Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974 for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bu s chassis? Would this action violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220 and 221)?

2. If permitted, can the work described in 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehicle repair shops su ch as bus body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

3. If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

Your timely answer to the above questions will assist us in expediting our response to the local school board and will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht87-2.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard F. Anderson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager Phoenix Products Company, Inc. 4715 North 27th Street Milwaukee, WI 53209

Dear Mr. Anderson:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 1987, with respect to the acceptability of stroboscopic lighting as a supplement to the center high-mounted stop lamp. This lamp, or a series of lamps, would operate only under "panic" conditions, when the opera tor exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. You envision both OEM and aftermarket applications.

The acceptability of supplemental lighting equipment is determinable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 as amended and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which i s issued under its authority. Standard No. 108 is primarily concerned with the lighting equipment that it mandates as original equipment for motor vehicles, and replacement equipment for those items. Supplemental stroboscopic lamps are not covered by the standard, but as original equipment is nevertheless subject to several restrictions. A lamp that is not covered by Standard No. 108 is permissible if it does not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. (Paragraph S4.1.3. ) We offer no opinion whether a stroboscopic panic light would impair the effectiveness of a vehicle's stop lamp system. However, all passenger car lamps except turn signals and hazard warning signals (and headlamps and side marker lamps when used for si gnaling) must be steady-burning when in use. (S4.5.11) Since the strobe lamp is a pulsing one, it would therefore not be acceptable as original equipment.

Once a vehicle has been sold to its initial purchaser, the safety standards no longer apply. The only restriction that pertains to it is that any modification performed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business must not ren der inoperative in whole or in part any device or element of design installed pursuant to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As your strobe design would not appear to interfere with the operation of the center high-mounted stop lamp, it does not ap pear to violate this restriction. However, aftermarket equipment of this nature would be subject to the laws of the individual States in which the device is sold and/or used. We are unable to advise you of State laws, and suggest you contact for further advice the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

May 20, 1987

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This is written subsequent to a telephone discussion this date with Atty. Taylor Vinson, of your office.

Our company is a manufacturer of lighting products, and at the present, is in a particularly aggressive mode in search of new products to serve both existing and new markets.

I have offered a new product suggestion which would apply to automotive crash avoidance: the suggestion provides for one or more (I visualize three) stroboscopic lights that could be placed adjacent or surrounding the third brake light mounted at the rea r window ("Elizabeth Dole light").

The stroboscopic light (or lights) would not operate under normal braking conditions, but would operate only under "panic" conditions when the operator exerts higher than normal pedal pressure. Such pressure would activate a switch, which in turn, would fire the stroboscopic light(s), thereby providing an additional and attention-drawing warning.

Ms. Jones, my purpose in writing on this subject is that we would appreciate a determination that my suggestion would evolve into a product in conformance with any federal regulations that may exist relative to personal and commercial transportation.

If we learn from your office that the product is within legal limits, we would went to offer the product to both OEM and aftermarkets.

We will appreciate your guidance.

Sincerely,

Richard F. Anderson Regional Manager

ID: nht87-2.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. David O. Johnson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David O. Johnson 135 Karen Drive Washington, PA 15301

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your April 22, 1987, letter asking about the legality of transporting people in fifth wheel trailers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for promulgating safety standards for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The use of a motor vehicle, such as a trailer, is a matter over which we have no jurisdiction.

Because the legality of carrying people in trailers might be governed by State law, we suggest you contact State officials with your questions. Additionally, questions you might have about the operation of interstate motor carriers should be directed to Mr. Ton Kozlowski of the Office of Motor Carrier Standards (Room 3403 ), Federal Highway Administration, at this address.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

135 Karen Drive Washington, PA 15301

April 22, 1987

Gentlemen:

Please send any information concerning regulations governing the legality of transporting people in a fifth wheel trailer with an intercom between the travel trailer and the towing vehicle.

My understanding is that the Navy transports personnel in this manner which leads me to believe it is legal to do so.

Your prompt attention will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

David O. Johnson

ID: nht87-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Dianne Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance, and Product Development Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07650

Dear Ms. Black:

Your letter to Barry Felrice concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114 has been referred to me for response. This response is based on your letter, and a telephone conversation of March 17, 1987, between Mr. Edward Stumpkey of Jaguar and M r. Kenneth Rutland of this agency clarifying certain matters raised in your letter. I regret the delay in this response.

Standard 114, Theft Protection, requires that each vehicle subject to must have a key-locking system which must prevent not only normal engine activation, but also either steering or forward self-mobility or both when the key is removed.

You mention a system intended to meet the standard, but indicate that "for security reasons," you are reluctant to supply specific details on that system. Without reference to specific data, you state that your system meets paragraph S4.2(a) of Standard 114, that is, removing the key from the ignition prevents normal engine activation.

You go on to say that the microprocessing systems that control vehicle operations will not function when the driver removes the ignition key. Therefore, you state, you meet one of the conditions in S4.2(b) of the Standard, that is, removing the key must prevent forward self-mobility of the vehicle.

Based on the information you supplied, NHTSA can not agree that your key-locking system meets either requirement of S4.2(b). As I understand your description of Jaguar's system, deactivating the engine is the means by which you assert you prevent vehicle forward self-mobility. If a manufacturer could comply with the S4.2(b) with respect to preventing forward self-mobility by preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a), S4.2(b) would be redundant. Paragraph S4.2(b) requires an added safeguard with respect to forward self-mobility, such as a transmission lock or other means, to prevent a vehicle from moving under its own power should the engine somehow be activated without inserting the key.

Therefore, preventing normal engine activation under S4.2(a) will not meet the condition in S4.2(b) of preventing vehicle forward self-mobility. If jaguar has some means other than deactivating the engine to prevent forward self-nobility, its system may be acceptable. Otherwise, Jaguar must add some means to meet at least one of the conditions in S4.2(b).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Mr. Barry Felrice National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D. C. 20590

RE: FMVSS 114

Dear Mr. Felrice:

At the NHTSA Industry meeting last Wednesday, I promised to call you the following day to discuss the difficulty we had encountered with FMVSS 114 as it relates to new technology.

I did not call, obviously, because it appeared that I needed same more detail from the engineering development and design staff in England. That detail has now arrived and to allow you the opportunity to look at the problem, I have opted to write. Once y ou have had an opportunity to look over the text, perhaps we can discuss either by telephone or in person.

Our difficulty appears to be with S4.2 and S4.3 of the relevant standard. Summary of S4.2 Each vehicle shall have a key locking system that whenever the key is removed, will prevent:

a) normal activation of the vehicles engine or other main source of native power.

b) either steering or forward self mobility of the vehicle or both.

Summary of S4.3 The prime means of deactivating the vehicles engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterent required by S4.2(b).

For security reasons, I will not go into specific details of the system other than to say that by taking the key out of the ignition, we would meet paragraph (a) of S4.2. In other words, without the ignition key the vehicle cannot be activated. Without t he insertion of the ignition key activated, thus rendering the fueling and ignition maps inactive. This meets one of the condition in paragraph (b) of S4.2, in that with the processors inactive the engine will not run therefore the vehicle cannot move un der it; own forward mobility.

Perhaps we have overinterpreted the standard 114 to require steering column locks but your comment and thoughts would be appreciated. In further discussion, I can provide more detail of the system for you.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Black Engineering Manager, Legislation, Compliance and Product Development

ID: nht87-2.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John B. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John B. White Engineering Manager, Product Engineering Michelin Americas Research & Development Corp. P.O. BOX 1987 Greenville, SC 29602

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you stated that you currently mark a tire with the size designation 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J. You also stated that this tire has the same dimensions as a 15 R 22.5 Load Range J tire. You asked whether Standard No. 119 would prohibit the following size designation from being marked on the tire:

385/65R22.5 LRJ (15R22.5)

The marking requirements for tires subject to Standard No. 119 are set forth in section S6.5 of the standard. Section S6.5(c) requires that each tire be marked on both sidewalls with "the tire size designation as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1." Section S5.1 of Standard No. 119 requires each tire manufacturer to ensure that a listing of the rims that may be used with each tire the manufacturer produces is available to the public. This may be done either by the individual man ufacturer furnishing a document to each of its dealers, to this agency, and to any person upon request, or the manufacturer may rely on the tire and rim matching information published by certain standardization organizations.

With respect to the 385/65 R 22.5 Load Range J tire size, Michelin has not furnished any individual information for this tire size to the agency. The only standardization organization that has published tire and rim matching information for this tire siz e is the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO), which did so in its 1987 yearbook. Accordingly, section S5.2 of Standard No. 119 provides that the information for this tire size in the 1987 ETRTO yearbook is considered to be information fo r Michelin's tires of that size.

The 1987 ETRTO yearbook shows the tire size only as 385/65 R 22.5. As noted above, section S6.5(c) requires that the tire size designation on the sidewall be "as listed in the documents and publications designated in S5.1". Reading this requirement as na rrowly as possible, S6.5(c) prohibits Michelin from marking the tires as both 385/65 R 22.5 and 15 R 22.5, since the size is shown only as 385/65 R 22.5 in the publication designated in S5.1 of Standard No. 119.

In a broader sense, the practice of labeling two tire sizes on one tire, as you requested in your letter, was once a fairly common practice and was referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings were a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to try to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tire on their vehicles, by representing that this particular tire size was an appropriate replacement for two different sizes of tires. However, the practice of using dual-size markings confused many consumers about the size of the tire on their vehicle. The only purpose of the Federally required markings on tires is to provide consumers, in a straightforward manner, with technical infor mation necessary for the safe use and operation of the tire. The agency concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a marketing technique that was confusing many consumers to defeat the purpose of the required markings on tires. Accordingly, dual-size markings were expressly prohibited for passenger car tires subject to Standard No. 109; 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971.

While Standard No. 119 does not expressly prohibit dual-size markings, section S6.5(c) uses the singular when it refers to the "tire size designation" associated with dual-size markings, this agency interprets section S6.5(c) of Standard No. 119 as prohi biting a manufacturer from marking a tire with two different size designations, even if a document or publication designated in S5.1 were to show two different size designations for the same tire size.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

File: FMVSS 119

15 May 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Office of Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sir:

This is in regards to the marking requirements of FMVSS 119. We have a tire which is marked with the tire designation 385/65R22.5 LRJ. This tire has the same dimensions as the 15R22.5 LRJ and therefore can replace that tire. Would the following marking m eet the requirements of FMVSS 119?

385/65R22.5 LRJ (15R22.5)

We would appreciate a prompt reply to this question.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

John B. White Engineering Manager Product Engineering

ID: nht87-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rudy van Kreuningen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. van Kreuningen:

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

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

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

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

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

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

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

Gentlemen:

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

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

Attached is a copy of the letter for your information.

Sincerely,

Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl.

March 25, 1986

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

Subject: Accessory Shelf for Truck/Cars

Gentlemen:

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

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

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

1) Is this type of product presently prohibited?

2) If not, what safety standards apply?

Please supply us with copies of applicable safety standards.

If you desire any additional information, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Rudy van Kreuningen Director of Engineering RVK/df Encl.

ID: nht87-2.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gary Harris

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Harris Division Quality Control Manager LSI Safelite 801 South Wichita Wichita, KS 67201

Dear Mr. Harris:

This responds to your letter of February 17, 1987, concerning the use of a DOT code number on glazing material by someone other than the prime manufacturer. I regret the delay in our response. You indicate in your letter that a customer has requested tha t you, as the prime manufacturer of the glazing material, include in your trademark on each piece of glazing material the DOT code number issued to you. You refer to the particular glazing material in question as "stock glass", since a customer purchases sheets of glazing material from you and then cuts the glazing into pieces for various unknown applications. You object to this request, because you have no control over the use to which the glazing material will be put. You request our opinion and we of fer the following.

The marking and certification requirements for glazing materials are contained in S6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and include different marking requirements for a prime manufacturer and other types of manufacturers . (A prime glazing material manufacturer is defined in S6.1 as one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material.) The only glazing material which must carry the DOT code mark is that produced by a prime manufacturer and designed as a compon ent of a specific motor vehicle or camper. Since you specifically indicate that you do not know the use to which the glazing material will be put, there is no requirement that this glazing material carry your manufacturer's code.

The purpose of the manufacturer's code is to help the agency identify the actual manufacturer of the glazing material for the purpose of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. The difference in the marking requirements was designed to help the agency distinguish between glazing in a motor vehicle that had been manufactured by the prime manufacturer specifically for use in that vehicle and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered before installation. In a July 13, 1976, letter to "Luci te" Acrylic Sheet Products, we stated that the certification requirements had become widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the glazing industry, which has aided the traceability of glazing for enforcement purposes. We went on to say that, for these reasons, we were no longer prohibiting the use of the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of the code number to the d istributor or manufacturer.

In summary, you may include, if you wish, your DOT code number on glazing material not designed for use in a specific motor vehicle or camper, but sold by you to others. There is no obligation to do so, however. If you have further questions please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Room 5219-NCC01 400 Seventh Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Erika:

Lear Siegler Incorporated - Safelite Division is a manufacturer of laminated and tempered safety glazing for use in automotive applications. Safelite manufactures safety glazing for specific locations in motor vehicles as well as laminated products that Safelite's customers will cut into parts for use in motor vehicles at their locations. This particular type of laminated glass, that will be cut by Safelite's customers into various parts for various unknown applications, is called "stock glass Stock gla ss is the subject of this letter.

LSI-Safelite has a customer who is requesting Safelite to include in it's trademark on each piece of stock glass, the Department of Transportations number. Safelite has a strong conviction that Safelite should not put it's Department of Transportation nu mber in the trademark of stock glass.

Safelite's man reason for having this conviction is that Safelite has no control over how it's customers use this glass after the customer(s) cut down into various parts for automotive glazing usage. The customer may very well use the AS-2 glass for a wi ndshield application which, in accordance to the Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. is incorrect usage of this particular type of glazing.

This letter is a request for a written interpretation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's legal council of the Motor Vehicle Codes and/or Safety Standards views of using the prime manufacturers of safety glazing materials Department of Transportation code number on glazing that their customers will be cutting into various parts for usage unknown to the prime glazing material manufacturers.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Your timely response to this request would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your assistance.

Respectfully,

Gary Harris Division Quality Control Manager