ID: nht95-3.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Jane L. Dawson -- Specifications Engineer; Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JANE DAWSON TO WALTER MYERS

TEXT: Dear Ms. Dawson:

This responds to your letter to Walter Myers of this office regarding the May 9, 1995, amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. I apologize for the delay in responding. For your future referen ce, Mr. Myers is no longer assigned to our school bus standards. You may address requests for interpretation directly to me.

The May 9 amendment (60 FR 24562) to FMVSS No. 217 permitted, among other things, bus manufacturers to meet the additional emergency exit area (AEEA) requirements of S5.2 by permitting manufacturers to install two emergency exit windows as an alternative to an emergency exit door. You asked what the location requirements (fore and aft) are for the emergency windows that are used as the first additional emergency exit.

FMVSS No. 217 contains no explicit fore and aft location requirements for the two additional emergency exit windows. However, the intent of the final rule was to substitute the location requirements of the side exit door when the windows are used to sat isfy the requirement for the first additional emergency exit. This intention is reflected in the use of the conjunctive word "or" in Tables 1 and 2 of the May 9, 1995, amendment. If a left side exit door would have been installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(a )(2)(i), then S5.2.3.2(a)(2) requires that it be located as near as practicable to the midpoint of the passenger compartment. The same fore-aft location should be used for the windows. In cases where the fore-aft location is not specified, such as a ri ght side exit door installed pursuant to S5.2.3.1(b)(2)(i), then the windows should be placed so as to provide bus passengers with maximum accessibility to an emergency exit, in accordance with what is reasonable and practicable.

Also note the explicit location requirement in S5.2.3.2(c) that exit windows be evenly divided between the left and right sides of the bus. For example, if two exit windows are used instead of a left side exit door, they should be placed on opposite sid es at the midpoint of the bus.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or seek additional information, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek at this address or by calling (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: George E. Walton -- International Manufacturer's Consultants, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 07/13/95 LETTER FROM GEORGE WALTON TO JOHN WOMACK (OCC 11044)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walton:

This responds to your July 13, 1995 letter requesting an interpretation regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." You stated in your letter that your client wants to know if Standard No. 205 permits the use of laminated AS-1 glass in motorcycle windshields.

The answer to your question is yes. ANSI Z26.1-1977, which has been incorporated by reference into Standard No. 205, explicitly refers to item 1 glazing (defined as including laminated glass) as "Safety Glazing Material for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle ." Motorcycles are motor vehicles. Therefore, item 1 glazing is permitted in that application.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test proc edure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not spe cify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met un der all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHT SA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the bas is for your certification.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Tim Phillips -- International Tire Marketers

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/21/95 LETTER FROM TIM PHILLIPS TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10999)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Phillips:

This responds to your letter of June 21, 1995, in which you asked us to update your information on new tire sizing codes used in the DOT identification of tires. Please be advised that this agency no longer specifies tire size codes.

49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) @ 574.5, Tire identification requirements (copy enclosed), requires tire manufacturers to label on one sidewall of each tire it produces a tire identification number (TIN), and specifies that the TIN will be composed of four groupings, the second of which "shall be used to identify the tire size."

The size requirement in the TIN was first promulgated as @ 574.4 on November 10, 1970 (35 FR 17257). At that time, NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) specified in Table 1 of the regulation the codes to be used to designate the various tire sizes. In the following two years, the agency amended Table 1 numerous times to add new codes to represent additional tire sizes. On November 8, 1972 NHTSA published a final rule rescinding Table 1 and the agency-specified tire codes (37 FR 23727). Th e agency explained that because of the many new tire sizes being introduced, available new codes had become exhausted and it was necessary to change the system to one permitting greater flexibility. Accordingly, the agency amended the regulation to permi t manufacturers to assign their own two-digit code to represent tire size and to permit retreaders to use either a self-assigned matrix code or a self-assigned tire size code. The November 8, 1972 amendment also required each new tire manufacturer and r etreader to maintain a record of each symbol used and provide that information to NHTSA upon written request. Those requirements remain in effect (49 CFR @ 574.5(b)).

In summary, 49 CFR @ 574.5 no longer specifies tire size codes for use as the second grouping of symbols in TINs. Rather, the regulation permits manufacturers and retreaders to use their own tire size codes in that grouping of the TIN.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should 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.

ID: nht95-3.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel; NHTSA

TO: Giuseppe Di Vito -- Societa Italiana Vetro S.p.A., Sede e Stabilimenti

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/22/95 LETTER FROM GIUSEPPE DI VITO TO CHIEF COUNSEL (OCC 10947)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Di Vito:

This responds to your May 22, 1995, letter requesting an interpretation regarding the testing requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, "Glazing Materials." I apologize for the delay in responding. You stated in your letter t hat you have been requested to manufacture for BMW some type 15A side window security glazing with an internal spall shield coating. Because of the adhesive with which it is applied, this coating cannot pass test number 4 of ANSI Z.26.1-1977 (the boil t est). Nevertheless, you urge that test number 5 (the bake test) be used as a substitute for purposes of compliance certification.

The boil test and the bake test are not equivalent, and your glazing would have to meet the boil test. Although both tests subject the glazing to the same heat for the same period, the bake test applies the heat using an oven, whereas the boil test appl ies the heat using boiling water. Section 5 of Z.26 explicitly states that the boil test is to be used for safety glass and that the bake test is only to be used for multiple glazed units. The illustrations that you enclosed with your letter show that your glazing is not a multiple glazed unit. Therefore, it has to meet the boil test to be certified for use on motor vehicles sold in this country.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to write Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or call him at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jerel M. Sachs -- General Manager, Automotive Glass, Import Products Glass (IPG)

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 6/26/95 LETTER FROM JEREL M, SACHS TO CLARKE HARPER; ALSO ATTACHED TO 8-4-86 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO HENRY A. GORRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/10/87 LETTER FROM ERIKA JONES TO DAVID C. MAROON; ALSO ATTACHED TO 6/14/90 LETTER FROM PAUL J ACKSON RICE TO NORMAND LAURENDEAU

TEXT: Dear Mr. Sachs:

This responds to your June 26, 1995, letter requesting a manufacturer's code mark for automotive glazing to comply with the marking requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated in your letter that y ou "intend to engage in the manufacture and/or contract manufacture of automotive safety glass in the United States and overseas." Your letter also stated that you were negotiating for the tooling, machinery, and the code mark of Lin's Glass Company in T aiwan.

In a June 29, 1995, phone conversation between Paul Atelsek and a member of your staff, we learned that IPG only imports and distributes; but does not actually make, glazing. He was also told that Lin's has gone out of business, and that you had switche d to another supplier in Taiwan. In a July 13, 1995, phone conversation with Mr. Atelsek, you confirmed that IPG makes no glazing and that your new supplier has a code mark assigned by NHTSA, but said that you preferred to use a "fresh" number assigned to your company. You said that other companies that do not make glazing have code marks assigned to them, and named another company that you said imports "cheap" Chinese glass and applies its own manufacturer's code mark in order to disguise the origin of the glass from its buyers. In a July 13, 1995, letter in support of your request, you stated that IPG would be doing contract manufacturing with a supplier who is also supplying other customers, and that having your own number would help you monitor quality control and track your product in the marketplace. You believe that having your own number would also benefit NHTSA because the agency would have an easier time implementing a recall through IPG than through the Taiwanese supplier.

As Mr. Atelsek explained on the telephone, we cannot issue a number to your company because you are not a "prime glazing manufacturer." Standard 205, at S6.1, defines "prime glazing material manufacturer" as "one who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material." As your company does none of these things, we cannot issue a code mark to IPG. To show you that this is a matter of longstanding legal interpretation, I have enclosed some interpretation letters we have written to others asking this question and related questions.

The glass should be marked with the number we have assigned to your supplier, the prime glazing manufacturer in Taiwan. The practice you mentioned of using code marks to disguise the identity of the manufacturer is directly contrary to our policy. This code mark is supposed to help NHTSA identify the prime manufacturer of the glazing material for purposes of defect and noncompliance recall campaigns. Therefore, the code mark on a particular piece of glazing needs to refer to the company that actually , made the glazing, and code marks should never be applied to glazing made by anyone else.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Mr. Atelsek at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht95-3.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JIM BURGESS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10931)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door rete ntion components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

Side doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not confo rm to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude whe elchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriat e.

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

ID: nht95-3.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 7, 1995

FROM: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TO: John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREY CLOCK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I need to obtain some clarification regarding the FMVSS302 Flammability specification. The specification states the following information:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an addition U-shaped frame, wider that the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10-mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

What material does the above mentioned statement pertain to. Currently, Moriden America is testing the following types of materials and need to determine if it is acceptable to use wires during the test:

* Flat Woven * Double Raschel * Tricot * Moquette

All of these materials also are laminated by two types of foam backings, CK scrim and 780 Dow Film. The material's thickness varies from 0mm to 8mm. I would appreciate if you could determine if the material should be tested with wires.

If you have any questions, please call.

ID: nht95-3.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 8, 1995

FROM: Nancy Tavarez -- Bietrix Industries, Inc.

TO: John Walmack -- Chief Council ATSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 08/30/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO NANCY TAVAREZ (REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Walmack:

We are currently importing Phoenix Halogen Auto Bulbs H4 series, H3, H1 and 9000 series-HBI for the USA market. Mr. Taylor Benson recently informed us that these lights required DOT approval. We request you to please inform via fax the procedure to fol low in order to obtain DOT approval for our automotive lights.

We greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter.

ID: nht95-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 9, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Don Bearden -- Director, Governmental Affairs, Subaru of America, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/19/95 LETTER FROM DON BEARDEN TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bearden:

This is in response to your letter of May 19, 1995, in which you state that Subaru of America, Inc. is considering the use of an optional rear bumper-mounted spare tire carrier on a future vehicle, and request this office to confirm your understanding th at the tire and carrier are to be removed before the vehicle is tested for compliance with the Bumper Standard, 49 CFR Part 581.

Your letter states that this equipment "would be mounted to the bumper beam and face bar." As your letter notes, bumper test conditions at 49 CFR 581.6(a)(5) specify that "[running] lights, fog lamps, and equipment mounted on the bumper face bar are remo ved from the vehicle if they are optional equipment." In light of this requirement, if the spare tire carrier your letter describes is only to be offered as optional equipment, it would have to be removed before the vehicle is tested for compliance with the Bumper Standard.

If you have any further questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact Coleman Sachs of my staff at the above address, or by telephone at (202) 366-5263.