ID: nht92-3.22

DATE: 10/08/92

FROM: T. KOUCHI, -- DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT & ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: RE.: PHOTOMETRIC TEST METHOD OF HMSL

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12-1-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO T. KOUCHI (A40; STD. 108)

TEXT: We Would like to ask you some questions about photometric test method of High-Mounted Stop Lamp (HMSL) using Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) as light sources.

BACKGROUND: HMSL is required to conform to SAE J186a which is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108. We know, however, that SAE J1889 has been published as a technical guide to standard practice for LED lighting devices. So, in making photometric measurement of HMSL incorporating LEDs, we usually follow testing method described in Sec. 3.1.5 (Photometry Test) of that SAE document.

PROBLEMS: When we conduct photometric measurements of HMSL incorporating LEDs according to the test method of SAE J1889 as mentioned above, the lamp must be energized, for the measurement of photometric minimums, "until either internal heat buildup saturation has occurred or 30 minutes has elapsed, whichever occurs first" as recommended in Sec. 3.1.5.3. However, since it is rather difficult to determine the exact time of internal heat buildup saturation every time when measuring lamps, we make it a rule to conduct measurement 30 minutes after the lamp energization. We think it is reasonable that the lamp should be energized for stabilization beforehand, because the light output of a lamp changes with time at the beginning of operation due to the unique character of LEDs. But, after energization for such a long time as 30 minutes, the light output decreases by approximately 30% of the initial value depending on the type of lamp.

So we must always allow a margin of the same percentage when designing initial light output of the lamp, which necessitates increase in the number of LEDs used, lamp size, product cost, and, therefore, user's expense.

SOLUTION: To solve the above mentioned problems, and for reasons as will be stated in the following, we consider that the warm-up time of HMSL incorporating LEDs should be 5 minutes for measurement of photometric minimums.

Reasons: 1) The time duration is usually within a minute or 3 minutes at the longest that a driver keeps to step on the brake pedal. We do not have the statistical data about this time duration, but some members of our staff who drive a car everyday gave us similar values.

2) The light output of the lamp does not always stabilize in 5 minutes, but it is not necessary to take a warm-up time above the time duration the lamp is continuously operated in real driving.

3) SAE J575 "Warpage Test on Devices with Plastic Components" prescribes, in Table 1, operating cycles of individual signal lamps during the warpage test, and it specifies 5 on-5 off operation for a stop lamp. This specification of 5-minute energization deserves attention because it seems to be established taking into consideration actual way of usage of stop lamps.

Based on the above explanation, we would like you to revise FMVSS 108 by adding a new provision, in certain place thereof, specifying that HMSL incorporating LEDs shall be energized for 5 minutes before measurement of photometric minimums. Your view on this matter is highly appreciated.

Furthermore, regarding actual steps of photometric measurement, we ask you to permit the following. We would like to have your comment on this matter also.

STEPS: 1. Measure luminous intensity at H-V axis after the lamp was energized for 5 minutes.

2. After the light output stabilized, measure luminous intensities at all test points including H-V axis.

3. From the results of Steps 1 and 2, calculate the decrease rate of the luminous intensity at H-V axis from the time the lamp was energized for 5 minutes to the time the light output stabilized.

4. Multiply the luminous intensities at test points excluding H-V axis obtained at Step 2 by the reciprocal of the decrease rate calculated at Step 3, to estimate the luminous intensities to be measured at respective test points after the lamp was energized for 5 minutes. Then the individual estimated values are deemed the measured photometric values and they are recorded.

ID: 08-007039drn edds

ID: nht76-2.12

DATE: 04/14/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Blue Bird Body Company's March 15, 1976, request for confirmation that calculation of the material tensile strength of body panels under S6.2(a) of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, is based on the minimum thickness permitted by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard 525 for the thickness specified in ordering the material. This response also reflects the April 1, 1976, meeting held between Blue Bird representatives and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) personnel at Department of Transportation headquarters.

Under ASTM standards, the thickness of listed materials is permitted to vary from the specified or "nominal" thickness by a small amount. If the thickness tolerance of a material is specified by the ASTM, the NHTSA bases its determination of thickness on the "minimum thickness" specified for that material in the 1973 edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards. If the thickness tolerance of a material is not specified by the ASTM, the NHTSA uses the minimum thickness permitted by the school bus manufacturer's material specification.

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

March 15, 1976

Mr. Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221 - SCHOOL BUS BODY JOINT STRENGTH

In S6.2(a) the subject standard makes provision for the manufacturer to determine the material tensile strength as published by the ASTM. This information is required before a manufacturer can design body joints and tooling to manufacture those joints in compliance with the subject standard.

Material tensile strength as published by the ASTM has a tolerance and we need to know to which end of the tolerance we must design. The standard adequately addresses this problem in S6.2(a) by stating ". . . .the relative tensile strength for such material is the minimum tensile strength specified for that material in the 1973 Edition of the Annual Book of ASTM Standards."

This only addresses half of the tolerance problem. The ASTM standards show tolerances for metal thickness ranges. In the absence of specific guidelines of this problem and because we must commit for tooling immediately, we are using the minimum thickness based on our specified thickness and tolerance in ASTM A525-73. This approach seems to be justified in light of the tensile strength guidelines given in S6.2(a).

If this approach is not satisfactory, please contact us by telephone immediately. We will also appreciate a written reply to this letter at your earliest convenience.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

cc: Bob Williams; Jim Moorman; Jim Swift

ID: 17692.wkm

Mr. John White
John White Company
770 Washington Street
Largo, IN 46941

Dear Mr. White:

This responds to your letter of March 30, 1998, to Walter Myers of my staff and Mr. Myers' telephone conversation of April 7, 1998, with your foreman, Jerry. You stated that your company builds and repairs hopper bottom trailers used for hauling grain. You equip your trailers with used undercarriages, including axles, brakes, and suspensions, which you mount on new frames and beds. You asked whether your trailers are required to comply with the antilock brake system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. The answer depends on the particular facts of your operation.

The agency's regulation with regard to combining new and used components in assembling trailers is found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 571.7(f), Combining new and used components in trailer manufacture (copy enclosed), which provides in pertinent part:

When new materials are used in the assembly of a trailer, the trailer will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless, at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking and suspension) are not new, and was taken from an existing trailer -

(1) Whose identity is continued in the reassembled vehicle with respect to the Vehicle Identification Number; and

(2) That is owned or leased by the user of the reassembled vehicle.

By its terms, therefore, subsection 571.7(f) applies to situations in which new components are combined with used components in the assembly of a trailer. Specifically, the trailer will be considered new unless, at a minimum, the axle(s), wheels, brakes, and suspension are not only not new, but must have been taken from an existing trailer. Moreover, the vehicle identification number of the existing trailer must be continued in the reassembled trailer and both must have been owned or leased by the user of the reassembled trailer. Unless all these conditions are met, the trailer is considered new and must be certified to all applicable standards, including the ABS requirements of Standard No. 121, in accordance with 49 CFR Part 567 (copy enclosed).

For your additional information, I am enclosing fact sheets entitled Federal Requirements for Manufacturers of Trailers and Where to Obtain NHTSA's Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992, fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:121#571
d.6/12/98

ID: nht88-4.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 28, 1988

FROM: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

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

TITLE: PART 571.3 VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION OF THE GM 200

ATTACHMT: DECEMBER 21, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO BALL

TEXT: On November 21, 1988, representatives of General Motors Corporation (GM) met with you and other NHTSA personnel to review GM's bases for classifying the passenger van versions of its GM 200 minivan family as multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) under 4 9 C.F.R. Part 571.3. The purpose of this letter is to summarize that presentation and to seek your concurrence with our determination. You will recall that "GM 200" is the program designation for the entire minivan family, and that the cargo van version of that family will be classified as a truck under Part 571.3.

Pre-introduction publicity relating to this vehicle family has made reference to the GM 200 being launched from the GM "A" car platform. Although the GM 200 will share some of the "A" car front wheel drive components, the common chassis used in the carg o and passenger van versions of the GM 200 is unique from the "A" car chassis and its unique features make it more suitable for commercial usage than a passenger car chassis. In this regard, the GM 200 cargo van version and the passenger van with its re ar seats removed will have approximately 95 percent greater cargo-carrying volume than an "A" car station wagon.

With respect to pertinent definitions in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and NHTSA interpretations, the definition of "multipurpose passenger vehicle" in Part 571.3 provides that an MPV is "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." As we indicated during our meeting; the focus of our vehicle classification was based on the "truck chassis" alternative of the definition.

2

Although "truck chassis" is not defined in the regulations, the NHTSA indicated in the December 1, 1983 interpretation letter to Mazda that:

The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck att ributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis.

With these criteria in mind, GM concluded that the passenger van versions of the GM 200 minivan are appropriately classified as MPVs because the GM 200 minivan family is constructed on a "truck chassis." In this regard, "truck attributes" of the GM 200 c hassis which make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis include:

1. An integrated ladder-type frame with full-length longitudinal rails and supporting cross-members;

2. An extended width rear axle;

3. A specific truck family powertrain certified to comply with light-duty truck emission standards, including the 11-year, 120,000 mile "useful life" requirements; and

4. A flat load floor.

As further evidence that the GM 200 chassis is a "truck chassis," a cargo van version will be marketed and sold by Chevrolet to compete in the commercial truck market. As we demonstrated during our presentation and through the review of a prototype of t he cargo van, this truck version of the GM 200 minivan family has commercial use characteristics not available in a passenger car.

3

We also showed at the November 21 meeting through an analysis performed by Failure Analysis Associates, that minivans classified as MPVs have certain similar chassis and body characteristics. In this connection, Failure Analysis Associates concluded fro m its review of the GM 200 and nine competitive MPVs that the GM 200 has a frame construction similar to these MPVs and falls within the range of chassis and body measurements exhibited by such competitive vehicles.

In summary, the passenger van versions of the GM 200 minivan family are constructed on a "truck chassis," and are, therefore, appropriately classified as "multipurpose passenger vehicles" pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 571.3, inasmuch as: (1) the GM 200 fami ly of vehicles uses a common chassis which has "truck attributes" which make it more suitable for commercial use than a passenger car chassis; (2) a cargo van version will be produced to compete in the commercial truck market; and (3) the physical chassi s and body characteristics of the GM 200 fall within the range exhibited by competitive MPVs.

Due to the confidential and proprietary nature of the future product information and the product comparisons included in certain slides presented at the November 21 meeting and attached to this letter, GM requests that they be afforded confidential treat ment by the NHTSA and Department of Transportation until the GM 200 family of vehicles is made available for sale to the public.

Future product plans, descriptions and comparisons of future products with competitive vehicles are "trade secrets" within the meaning of Section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States Code, entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of Title 5 of the United States Code (Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act) and Section 112(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended and implemented in Part 512 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

The specific slides for which confidential treatment is being requested have been labeled "GM CONFIDENTIAL". The information contained in these slides is not customarily made public by GM. The disclosure to the public of GM's future product plans, desc riptions and comparisons with competitive vehicles is likely to result in significant competitive harm to GM. Furthermore, GM believes that this information falls within the "Class Determinations" in Appendix B to 49 C.F.R. Part 512 which the NHTSA has concluded would presumptively result in significant competitive damage to the submitter.

4

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. Part 512.4(e), an affidavit in support of this assertion of confidentiality is also attached. If you should disagree with our position that these documents are entitled to confidential treatment, we would appreciate the opportunity to provide you with a further explanation and to address any concerns you may have.

We trust that the information contained in this letter and presented at the November 21 meeting will provide a sufficient basis for the NHTSA to concur with GM's determination regarding the vehicle classification of the GM 200. However, please contact m e if I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter.

Attachments

(Affidavit Omitted.)

ID: nht81-2.35

DATE: 06/18/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Roy Littlefield, Director, Government Relations, National Tire Dealers & Retreader Association, Inc.

COPYEE: AMERICAN RETREADERS' ASSOC., INC.; HARRISON FEESE -- U.S. CUSTOMS SERV.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/7/90 LETTER FROM PERRY FAULKNER TO WILLIAM MCCOLLUM; 3/13/91 LETTER FROM JAMIE MCLAUGHLIN FISH TO BILL MCCOLLUM (STD. 117; A37; STD. 119)

TEXT: This responds to your March 27, 1981, letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff. In your letter, you requested a clarification of a statement in my March 11, 1981, letter to Mr. Harry Shirai, concerning the importing of used tires into this country. Specifically, I had indicated that one means by which used tires could legally be imported into the United States would be for the tires to be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally manufactured, met the performance requirements of Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119). You have asked for more information on what steps would have to be taken to ensure that the imported tires complied with all of the requirements for this alternative.

Since receiving your letter, this agency has re-examined this subject. We recognize the severe supply problems facing the industry at this time and the possibly grave adverse price effects on consumers if such shortages are not eliminated. Bearing in mind the serious safety concerns which are involved, the agency has concluded that precedents exist for another alternative solution that would achieve the desired result without compromise of safety.

Used tires imported for retreading are unquestionably "pneumatic tires," as that term is defined in Standard 109. They cannot, however, legally be used on the public highways, since the tread on casings is almost always well under 2/32 of an inch. The use of tires with such minimal tread on trucks in interstate commerce is prohibited by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (49 CFR @ 393.75(c)) and would violate this agency's specifications for State vehicle inspection standards (49 CFR @ 570.9(a) and 49 CFR @ 570.62(a)). Hence, the majority of States would not certify a vehicle as passing inspection with these tires and trucks with these tires cannot be used in interstate commerce.

Further, it is important to examine the intent of the importers of these tires. According to the representations made by your organization and some individual members, it is our understanding that these tires would be imported solely for retreading purposes. In other words, these casings are materials needing further manufacturing operations to become completed items of motor vehicle equipment (retreaded truck tires), rather than finished items of motor vehicle equipment (tires which could lawfully be used or sold as they are). Objective proof of this intent can be found in the fact that significant numbers of used foreign truck tires were imported into this country between 1975 and 1980, yet this agency has no information indicating that these tires, which did not meet the requirements of Standard 119, were used or sold without being retreaded.

Based on these considerations, we conclude that truck tire casings which have less than 2/32 inch tread and which are imported, introduced into interstate commerce, offered for sale or sold solely for the purpose of retreading are not "items of motor vehicle equipment" within the meaning of that Act. Precedent for the use of such criteria is found in action by the agency in 1969 when it decided that mini-bikes were not "motor vehicles," within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. That decision was made because mini-bikes were prohibited from highway use in the vast majority of States, and because the manufacturers' subjective intent, proven by several objective factors, was not to build vehicles for use on the public roads (34 FR 15416, October 3, 1969).

As you know, there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truck tires. I urge you to stress to your members the need to assure the soundness of the casings used for retreading, so that no safety problems arise from retreading these tires. Should such a problem arise, this agency would consider rulemaking to establish a safety standard for retreaded truck tires, as well as exercising its authority with regard to items containing a safety-related defect.

Should you have any questions on the actual mechanics of importing these casings, and the duties which would be applicable, I suggest that you contact Mr. Harrison Feese, U.S. Customs Service, Room 4119, 1301 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. He can be reached at (202) 566-8651.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL TIRE DEALERS & RETREADERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

March 27, 1981

Stephen Kratzke Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

NTDRA would like to again thank you for taking the time to work with us and the industry regarding the importation of used truck tires, that do not bear the DOT symbol, into the United States.

We are at this time requesting a clarification of the March 11, 1981 letter from Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel of your agency, to Mr. Harry Shirai. A copy of that letter is appended. On page two of the letter, in discussing ways that used tire casings can be brought into the United States, the third option states that the tires must "be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the requirements of Standard No. 119." Does that mean that a foreign manufacturer can mail to both the NHTSA and the Customs Department a "blanket" certification stating all tires produced of a certain size and type at a given time had met, at the time of manufacture, the requirements of Standard No. 119 and thus satisfy the legal requirements of NHTSA and Customs for entry into the United States? If so, would it be necessary for each importer to bear a copy of such a letter with each shipment or tires, or would the letter on file at NHTSA and Customs be adequate?

As you know, there exists in this country a severe shortage of used truck tire casings to be used for retreading. NTDRA congratulates NHTSA's efforts to insure that only safe casings be used in the retreading process. Hopefully we can work together to find a solution to bring into this country safe casings that were made for use in foreign countries and subsequently do not bear the DOT symbol.

Thanks again for your efforts.

Roy Littlefield Director, Government Relations

ID: nht95-6.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Bart Stupak -- Member of Congress

TO: Ms. Brenda Brown -- Congressional Liaison, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/26/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO BART STUPAK (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Brown:

I am contacting you on behalf of my constituent Mr. Kurt B. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium. Mr. Ries has requested my assistance with a matter regarding a new law on highway safety standards that would require all vehicles to have impact resistant sides, if they are used to transport students. This law is to become effective in 1996.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Ries regarding the new law. He believes that this law would be financially devastating to organizations because the cost to achieve this requirement would be astronomical.

As always, your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please direct your response to Margaret Richard at my Escanaba District Office at the address listed below.

enclosure:

July 21, 1995

The Honorable Bart Stupak United States House of Representatives 317 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Stupak:

Our organization currently uses thirteen (13) 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from various employment training programs, camps and jobs.

I have now heard from various sources and school officials that there is some new law on highway safety standards that would take effect in 1996. It is my understanding that this new rule would stop the use of these large vans, and demand that youth only be transported in buses with impact resistant sides (i.e., mini-school buses).

While this is admirable, it will have an absolutely devastating effect on our programs, as we simply don't have the financial resources to replace 13 vans with 13 minibuses. I would suspect that this will also be a huge blow to schools and church groups that currently use these vans to transport youth. The rule or law is probably well-intended, but it will drastically curtail youth activities, and instead of meaningful experiences and education they will stay home.

These are big, heavy commercial vans that meet all auto safety standards, and frankly I have not heard of huge numbers of fatalities from their use. Is there some national statistic that proves otherwise?

It seems to me that this is yet one more idea conceived in Washington that means well, but is not realistic. If funds were available to replace all vans with buses, fine. But they aren't and the adverse effect will be tremendous.

I'd appreciate any information, and urge that you take appropriate action to help provide relief if this is the case.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kurt B. Ries Director NORTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM

ID: nht95-3.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 21, 1995

FROM: Bart Stupak -- Member of Congress

TO: Ms. Brenda Brown -- Congressional Liaison, DOT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/26/95 LETTER FROM CAROL STROEBEL TO BART STUPAK (A43; REDBOOK 2; PART 571)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Brown:

I am contacting you on behalf of my constituent Mr. Kurt B. Ries, Director of the Northeast Michigan Consortium. Mr. Ries has requested my assistance with a matter regarding a new law on highway safety standards that would require all vehicles to have i mpact resistant sides, if they are used to transport students. This law is to become effective in 1996.

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I received from Mr. Ries regarding the new law. He believes that this law would be financially devastating to organizations because the cost to achieve this requirement would be astronomical.

As always, your attention to this matter is appreciated. Please direct your response to Margaret Richard at my Escanaba District Office at the address listed below.

enclosure:

July 21, 1995

The Honorable Bart Stupak United States House of Representatives 317 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Stupak:

Our organization currently uses thirteen (13) 15 passenger vans to transport students to and from various employment training programs, camps and jobs.

I have now heard from various sources and school officials that there is some new law on highway safety standards that would take effect in 1996. It is my understanding that this new rule would stop the use of these large vans, and demand that youth only be transported in buses with impact resistant sides (i.e., mini-school buses).

While this is admirable, it will have an absolutely devastating effect on our programs, as we simply don't have the financial resources to replace 13 vans with 13 minibuses. I would suspect that this will also be a huge blow to schools and church gro ups that currently use these vans to transport youth. The rule or law is probably well-intended, but it will drastically curtail youth activities, and instead of meaningful experiences and education they will stay home.

These are big, heavy commercial vans that meet all auto safety standards, and frankly I have not heard of huge numbers of fatalities from their use. Is there some national statistic that proves otherwise?

It seems to me that this is yet one more idea conceived in Washington that means well, but is not realistic. If funds were available to replace all vans with buses, fine. But they aren't and the adverse effect will be tremendous.

I'd appreciate any information, and urge that you take appropriate action to help provide relief if this is the case.

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely, Kurt B. Ries Director NORTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSORTIUM

ID: nht89-3.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/89 EST

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA ACTING ADMINISTRATOR

TO: JOHN D. DINGELL -- CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/22/89 FROM JOHN D. DINGELL -- HOUSE TO JEFFREY R. MILLER; LETTER DATED 08/25/89 FROM CONSTANCE A. MORELLA -- HOUSE TO NORMAN Y. MINETA -- HOUSE; LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM W. MARSHALL RICKERT -- MVA TO CONSTANCE A. MORELLA; LETT ER DATED 07/08/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO NORMAN D. SHUNWAY -- CONGRESS; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BEVERLY B. BYRON -- HOUSE; STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of September 22, 1989, forwarding Representative Morella's letter inquiring about the requirements of Federal law and regulations as they apply to the tinting of motor vehicle windows for medical reasons. We recently began a ru lemaking proceeding on the issue of tinting, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the matter.

The enclosures to Ms. Morella's letter described a case in which a person suffers from a skin disease called vitiligo and was advised to avoid exposure to the sun's rays. The presumption is that this person needs more protection from the sun than that a fforded by vehicle windows that conform to the Federal standard.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, establishes a minimum 70 percent light transmissibility for glazing at levels "requisite for driving visibility," which includes all windows in passenger cars. When a requirement is estab lished in a Federal safety standard, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling, or importing a new vehicle that does not comply with that requirement. The Safety Act does not provide for individua l medical exemptions.

Similarly, the Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from "rendering inoperative" an element of design required by a safety standard, such as minimum light transmissibility. This "render inoperative" prohibition applies to vehicles after sale to purchasers. Neither this "render inoperative" provision nor any other Federal requirement would prohibit an individual vehicle owner from modifying their own vehicles, even if the modifications cause the vehicle to no l onger comply with the Federal safety standards. Thus, an individual vehicle owner can make whatever modifications he or she likes, for medical or any other reasons, without violating Federal law. However, the individual States have the authority to regu late modifications that owners may make to their vehicles, and

2 many States have chosen to regulate window tinting. For your reference, I have enclosed copies of our July 8, 1988 letter to Representative Shumway and our November 1, 1988 letter to Representative Byron on this subject.

The minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205 represents a balancing of legitimate competing interests. On the one hand, safety considerations dictate that drivers must be able to see and analyze the traffic situation in which the v ehicle is being operated and react to that situation properly and promptly. To the extent that some of the available light is not transmitted through the vehicle glazing, the driver's ability to react to the traffic situation is potentially delayed. Th is is especially true under low light conditions, such as occur at night and on very overcast days.

On the other hand, there are legitimate reasons for allowing some tinting of vehicle windows. These include avoiding excessive heat for all vehicle occupants, reducing glare for the driver, preserving the vehicle interior, and helping persons with medic al conditions that are sensitive to the sun's rays.

NHTSA balanced these competing interests by establishing the current 70 percent minimum light transmissibility requirement in Standard No. 205. However, the agency was asked in a petition for rulemaking to reexamine this balance and to permit darker tin ting of windows, by lowering the minimum light transmissibility requirement. We decided to reexamine whether the current minimum light transmibility requirement continues to represent the most appropriate and reasonable balance of the competing interest s.

Accordingly, on July 20, 1989, this agency published a request for comments on a comprehensive review of the 70 percent light transmissibility requirement for side and rear window glazing in passenger automobiles. One of the issues raised was the light transmissibility standard's effect on those who need more protection from the sun's ultraviolet rays. The comment period for this notice closed on September 18, 1989. The agency received nearly one hundred comments on this issue and is currently review ing those comments. We will notify you and Ms. Morella when we announce our decision.

I have placed a copy of your letter and this response in the public docket for this rulemaking action. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURES

ID: nht70-1.29

DATE: 02/04/70

FROM: D.W. TOMS -- DIR., NHTSA

TO: Motorcycle Scooter & Allied Trades Association Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: RE: MARKETING OF COMPETITION MOTORCYCLES

This is in response to your letter of November 19, 1969, in which you ask for an advisory opinion "as to the measures which an importer or distributor should take in order to assure compliance with regulations of the Federal Highway Administration in the marketing of motorcycles for competition use".

Specifically, you note:

"[The importation regulations appear] to require that the importer shall declare that motor vehicles imported for competition purposes will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. Hence there is some uncertainty whether this declaration connotes an implicit responsibility which survives sale to a purchaser not for resale".

The declaration to which you refer, 19 CFR @ 12.80(b)(2)(vii), is the declaration that the vehicle is being imported for purposes of competition and that it will not be sold or licensed for use on the public roads. If we discover that a vehicle covered by such a declaration has been sold or licensed for use on public roads, we would then have to determine whether the declaration was a false one. In making this determination we would look to those factors which show that, at the time he made the declaration, the importer knew or had reason to know that the vehicle would be put to on-road use. If, for example, prior dealings with the vehicle's purchaser had made the importer aware of the purchaser's intent to divert vehicles to markets for so-called "street legal" motorcycles, it is very likely that we would conclude that a declaration that the vehicle will not be sold or licensed for use on public roads was false at the time it was made. In these circumstances, our conclusion would not be altered by the fact that, at the time he sold the vehicle, the importer supplied the buyer with a document specifying that the vehicle was intended only for purposes of competition. In short, we would look behind the sales agreement to the realities of the transaction as the parties knew them.

Similarly, if relevant facts disclose that the importer seeks to evade his responsibilities by active promotion and sale to competition cycle purchasers of motor vehicle equipment which will make the competition machine "street local", and purchasers of competition machines are in fact buying such equipment for immediate conversion purposes, then a reasonable conclusion could be reached that a non-complying motor vehicle was being imported and offered for sale by the importer regardless of the declaration made at time of entry. In this sense there is "an implicit responsibility which survives sale to a purchaser not for resale".

You also raise the following point: "It is understood that motorcycle manufacturers and importers should not equip competition motorcycles with devices and accessories that would render them lawful for use and registration for use on public highways. It would be normal industry practice, however, to catalog accessory items and parts which could be applied to competition machines by the ultimate purchaser. Since many competition motorcycles have a 'sister' model manufactured for highway use, the sale of such items is necessary. Thus a question of the propriety of this practice is raised."

The mere cataloguing of parts equally applicable to both a competition motorcycle and a similar "sister" non-competition model does not appear to raise a question of propriety so long as other facts do not indicate that a significant number of purchases of these parts are made with the intention of conversion of competition motorcycles to street use.

Finally you note:

"Competition motorcycles are generally marketed through retail dealers in motor vehicles. Hence, the question arises as to whether this practice might continue without opposition by the Federal Highway Administrator."

You have also requested a ruling "that sale of competition motorcycles be permitted through franchised dealerships". You should clearly understand that the National Highway Safety Bureau his no desire to alter existing methods of motor vehicle marketing; it does not intend to "oppose" and it has no power to "permit" the sale of motor vehicles.

It does, however, have the power to classify a competition motorcycle as a "motor vehicle" if these vehicles are, in fact, being operated on the public roads to a significant extent, and if it believes that such a classification would reduce the toll of traffic injuries and deaths. But the mini-bike interpretation (34 F.R. 15416), referenced by you, states that marketing through retail dealers in motor vehicles is only one criterion which will be considered in any question of classification. Therefore importers and distributors of competition motorcycles which are sold through franchised dealerships are best advised in marketing these vehicles to follow the other criteria which the mini-bike interpretation sets forth.