ID: 1984-1.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. Detroit Office 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfie1d, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars (49 CFRS571.120). Specifically, you noted that section S5.2 of that standard required that certain information be labeled on the "weather side" of each rim or wheel disc. You then offered your interpretation of the term "weather side", and asked for my comments on that interpretation. My comment is that Standard No. 120 explicitly defines "weather side", and that the definition of the term in Standard No. 120 is somewhat broader than your interpretation of the term.

Section S4 of Standard No. 120 contains the following definition: "Weather side" means the surface area of the rim not covered by the inflated tire. The interpretation you offered in your letter was consistent with this definition, because it would require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by the inflated tire. However, your interpretation would also require that the information not be labeled in an area where it would be obscured by any axle mounting components, and this requirement is not contained in the definition set forth in Standard No. 120. You are free to use your narrower interpretation for your own purposes since it is consistent with the definition in the Standard, but the definition set forth in the Standard would be used to determine whether a rim complies with the requirements of the Standard.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or need more information on the requirements of Standard No. 120.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 13, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 120; Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The above Standard provides guidelines regarding the nature and display of tire and rim specifications. Within these guidelines, reference is made in Section 5.2 that the specifications, placed on the rim or wheel disc, " . . . shall appear on the weather side".

Mazda believes that this terminology refers to the surface of the rim or wheel disc that is not obscured by the mounted tire or any axle mounting components. This would result in ready accessibility of all specifications to personnel as the tire is mounted to the rim and avoid the obliterating effects that often occur between mating surfaces.

Please clarify the above terminology and comment on Mazda's interpretation of this requirement.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Office Manager

HN/ab

ID: 1984-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Talbott Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry D. Day, P.E. Talbott Associates Inc. 7 S.E. 97th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97216-2498

Dear Mr. Day:

This responds to your letter to this office asking for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571-208). Specifically, you asked if Standard No. 208 requires that all bus passengers be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment. Standard No. 208 specifies that the designated seating position for the driver must offer full automatic protection for the occupant in those circumstances or that the seating position must be equipped with a seat belt assembly that conforms to the requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. No requirements are specified for the other designated seating position on the bus.

Section S4.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies the protection which buses must afford the occupants, and allows the bus to comply with one of two protection requirements. The first option, set forth in section S4.4.1, is for the vehicle to meet the crash protection requirements set forth in section S5 of the standard (which include restraining the occupant from ejection in the event of a rollover) by means that require no action by the vehicle occupant. This requirement, however, must be met only with respect to an anthropomorphic test device in the driver's designated seating position. The second option, as specified in section S4.4.2, is for the vehicle to be equipped with either a Type 1 or a Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. Again, this option applies only to the driver's designated seating position. Neither of these options sets forth any requirements applicable to any other designated seating position in the bus.

Please feel free to contact me should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 10, 1984 TAI File 830203

Legal Counsel, FMVSS 208 NHTSA U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sirs:

I would like the legal interpretation of FMVSS 208, S6.1 as required by S5.3, Rollover. Specifically, my question is,

"Does S6.1 require that all passengers of a chartertype bus, transit bus, or school bus (e.g., multipurpose passenger vehicle with GVWR of more than 10,000 lb.) be restrained from ejection in the event of a rollover which is severe enough to destroy the integrity of the passenger compartment."

I am working on behalf of a bus manufacturing client who is concerned the present "compartmentalization concept" of restraint is insufficient to meet S6.1 under the above conditions. Your response in this matter is appreciated.

Very truly yours,

TALBOTT ASSOCIATES INC.

Terry D. Day, P.E.

TDD/sv

ID: 1984-1.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Louis Lemmens

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Louis Lemmens Decoba N.V. 3500 Hasselt Vaarstraat 4 Belgium

Dear Mr. Lemmens:

This responds to your letter to this office seeking information on requirements applicable to retreaded truck tires imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether a foreign-based retreader would be required to put another tire identification number on the tires it retreads, or whether that retreader could simply leave the original manufacturer's identification number on the retreaded tire. As explained below, the retreader is required to mark its own tire identification number on each tire it retreads. You then asked for information on how a retreader obtains an identification number, and this procedure is set forth below.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Section 574.5 specifies that each tire retreader shall permanently label one sidewall of each tire he retreads with the information specified in that section. For a retreader, the first group of three symbols in the identification number would represent the retreader's assigned identification mark, the second group of two symbols would identify the retread matrix in which the tire was processed, the third group of four symbols may be used to identify characteristics of the tire at the retreader's option, and the fourth group of three symbols would identify the week and year in which the tire was retreaded.

Section 574.6 explains the procedures to be followed by the retreader in applying for an identification mark, and specifies the information which must be provided by the retreader. The agency usually assigns the identification mark within two weeks of receiving the necessary information from a retreader.

However, a retreader identification mark will not be assigned until the retreader has designated an agent for the service of process, according to the requirements of 49 CFR S551.45 (copy enclosed). That section specifies that, for a designation of agent to be valid, it must contain the following six items:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the retreader under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business, and mailing address of the retreader;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the retreader's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent, and the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature. This designation should be mailed to the address shown in S551.45(b). When this agency has received both a completed application for a retreader identification mark and a designation of agent, a code mark will be assigned to the retreader promptly. This identification mark will be sent directly to the retreader and not to the designated agent.

Please feel free to contact me should you need any further information in this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosures

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION : TRUCK TIRES 400 7th Street South West WASHINGTON DC 20590 U S A

Hasselt, 1 december 1983.

Dear Sirs,

We are a Belgian tyre company and would like to export retreaded truck tyres to the USA.

We would like to know following :

1/ We are retreading casings from shoulder to shoulder. Those casings have original brand DOT-number (Michelin, Goodyear, a.s.o.). This number is still visible after retreading. Do we have to put on another DOT-number?

2/ If so can you please let us know how and how soon we can get it.

3/ If not please reply as soon as possible, by telex 39570 Belgium.

Awaiting your urgent reply.

Yours faithfully

for de Gonde LOUIS LEMMENS

ID: 1984-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/16/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pekka Suuronen -- Hella Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MR. Pekka Suuronen Hella, Inc. P.O. Box 1064 Cranford, NJ 07016

This is in response to your letter of November 30, 1983, clarifying your earlier requests for an interpretation of Standard No. 108. You have asked whether replaceable bulb headlamps may be manufactured in sizes identical to the current sizes for sealed beam headlamps, provided that they meet Stardard No. 108 in all other respects.

The replaceable bulb headlamp amendment was adopted with the intent of allowing Vehicle manufacturers greater flexibility in the front end design in order to improve aerodynamics. The amendment allows an original equipment two-lamp system of no specified dimensions, and replacement lamps for these systems. It was not directed towards replacement lamps for existing headlamp systems. However, because no exterior dimensions for headlamps are specified by the amendment, replaceable bulb headlamps intended for use in a two-lamp system, with exterior dimension of sealed beam round or rectangular two-headlamp systems, would be permissible assuming that they meet all other requirements of Standard No. 108, including providing one of the two aiming pad locations specified for replaceable bulb headlamps. However, until Standard No. 108 is amended to allow a four-lamp replaceable bulb headlamp system, these lamps are precluded from being manufactured to replace today's sealed beam round and rectangular sealed beem headlamps used in four-lamp systems.

I hope this provides the clarification you seek.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 30, 1983

NHTSA 400 Seventh St. NW Washington, DC 20590 ATTN: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1983, reference "NOA-30". I would like to clarify my question. I realize there is only one "legal" replaceable headlamp bulb which I call "Ford bulb", lacking a more official nomenclature.

By " six standard sizes" I mean headlamps, not bulbs. In other words, headlamps that would replace current six types 2D1, 1C1, 2C1, 1A1, 2A1, and 2B1. However, these proposed lamps would have a replaceable "Ford bulb" and a sealing just like in the Ford headlamp. In the case if Type 1 headlamp, only the high beam filament would be connected. The photometrics would meet the current SAE standards, the lamp would be mechanically rimable and the new proposed lamps would comply to all other applicable safety standards, as well.

My question is, would these kinds of headlamps be highway legal?

Please note that Racemark no longer is the importer of Hella. Please correspond to the address shown on the letterhead.

Sincerely,

PEKKA SUURONEN PS / lP

ID: 1984-1.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; NONE; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars Inc. -- C. Diane Black, Legislation and Compliance

TITLE: NHTSA RESPONSE TO PETITION

TEXT:

February 9, 1984

RE: FMVSS 101 Docket 1-18, Notice 23 7-27 Notice 24

Dear Ms. Steed:

On December 22, 1982, BL Technology Limited submitted a petition to your predecessor regarding a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Controls and Displays.

We are nearing the point of no return with a new model where "substantially resemble" and ISO parking brake symbol become extremely important.

I have attached one copy of our 1982 request and need to know if you and your staff require any other information from us to allow a decision on this request.

Sincerely,

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation & Compliance

CDB:as Attach.

22nd December 1982 Mr. R. Peck, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 7th Street SW, WASHINGTON DC 20490, U.S.A.

Dear Mr. Peck

FMVSS 101 Controls & Displays Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Dockets 1-18, Notice 23 70-27; Notice 24)

The following petition is submitted on behalf of BL PLC (Cars Group) manufacturers of Austin, MG, Jaguar, Rover and Triumph cars.

We refer to the NHTSA proposal to update FMVSS 101, Controls and Displays, by adding or modifying several symbols to bring the standard into harmony with the latest documents promulgated by the International Standards Organization.

As manufacturers of automobiles for markets throughout the world, we strongly support proposals that lead to the harmonization of vehicle standards. Notwithstanding this principle, we also feel that vehicle standards should not impede the introduction of new technology into the automobile.

The size and shape of symbols for controls, indicators and telltales is constrained by the ISO grid pattern, and in general, the shape of symbols is defined by a template in the display, the shape and continuity of which can be readily controlled. However, with the introduction of Informational Readout Displays and their associated 'dot matrix' character generation system, exact reproduction of smooth continuous curved shapes or lines may not be possible. The drivers recognition of such displays is not adversely affected and the ability to present additional information selectively, whilst not saturating the driver with an array of individual displays, has distinct economic advantages.

In Docket 1/18 Notice 13 the Administration recognized that minor deviations such as we have described should be permitted, provided the symbols so produced substantially resemble those in Table 2. To give effect to the Administration's position we therefore petition that S.5.2.3 be amended by the addition of a final sentence:-

'The provisions of this Section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2.'

With regard to the specific NHTSA request for comments on the use of a parking brake symbol, we request that the ISO symbol should be permitted as an alternative to words when a separate parking brake indicator lamp is provided.

Yours sincerely,

M. W. Lewis, Chief Engineer, Admin. & External Affairs

MWL/KD/VLS/A70/2e

C. Dianne Black Manager-Engineering Legislation and Compliance Jaguar Cars, Inc. 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in response to your letter in which you request information on the status of your Petition for Rulemaking on Controls and Displays submitted December 22, 1982, and granted on December 12, 1983.

Your petition along with several others is being reviewed by a Task Force set up by the Administrator. Its purpose is to rewrite FMVSS No. 101 to reflect changes in technology which impact the control and display systems planned for future production.

A number of the petitioners have requested modifications to permit various Informational Readout Displays or combinations of telltales and displays which are currently not permitted by one or more sections of the standard. Your petition asks for inclusion in the standard of this statement. "The provision of this section shall be considered to have been met if the symbols displayed substantially resemble those designated in Column 4 of Table 2." While providing manufacturers great latitude for interpretation, this addition would make the standard unenforceable without some design or performance boundaries on the words "substantially resemble."

We do not know how to set these performance limits and thus are retaining the policy established in the preamble to Notice 13 which asked manufacturers to produce symbols which substantially resemble those in the Tables. This approach allows thc agency to treat each symbol noncompliance on a case by case basis by weighing the impact on safety produced by the noncompliance.

To date all symbols have complied with the standard regardless of the technology used to make them visible to the driver. We note that you have not described the limitations of your dot matrix display in quantifiable terms and suspect that, like us, you have not found an easy way to define the relationship between density, color, distance from the driver, etc, vis a vis the perceived shape by the driver.

We have decided to terminate rulemaking on this subject at this time and, thus, will not be placing the words you recommended in the text of the standard. However, although the specific words are not included in the standard, the agency's intent should be clear from Notice 13 and this letter.

ID: 1984-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: McGraw-Edison Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering McGraw-Edison Company 18448 Craig Road St. Louis, Missouri 63146

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. You asked whether paper labels on brake fluid containers are sufficient to comply with the "indelibly marked" requirements of the standard. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, I would note that NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine that its motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116 states:

Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . .

It is our opinion that this section requires the relevant information to be marked directly on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label, whether paper or of some other material, that is affixed to the container. This is clear both from the plain language of the section and from the Federal Register notices proposing and adopting that language.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 30, 1970, NHTSA proposed the following language as part of the packaging and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids:

S4.2.2.2 Each packager of brake fluid shall furnish to each distributor or dealer to whom he sells brake fluid, the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, or on a label or tag firmly attached to each such container. . . . 35 FR 15229, 15231.

The final rule, published on June 24, 1971, did not adopt the proposed alternative of permitting the information to be provided on a label or tag firmly attached to the container, but instead required the information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. The language as adopted, which is very similar to the current language, was:

S5.2.2.2 Each packager of motor vehicle brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . . 36 FR 11987, 11989.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 5, 1983 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you with regard to paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116 which reads in part as follows:

"Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, . . . . "

I have observed a number of brands of brake fluids in the marketplace packaged in containers having a loose-fitting paper sleeve for the label. In the past we have been requested to supply brake fluid in containers with paper labels and have declined to do so on the basis that in my judgment a paper label does not comply with the requirement "indelibly marked".

Within the past few weeks we have been approached once again to supply brake fluid in containers with paper labels. We are reluctant to pursue this matter unless we have some assurance that a paper label does, indeed, comply with the "indelibly marked" provision of paragraph S5.2.2.2 FMVSS-116.

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

WAGNER DIVISION McGRAW-EDISON COMPANY

R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering RGB:ab

ID: 1984-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. Suite 462 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter of January 20, 1984, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked whether Mazda may modify the display of shift lever positions for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions to delete the gear lever indicator. As explained below, FMVSS No. 102 does not permit the deletion of the gear position indicator.

You should be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

Your letter states that Mazda automobiles with automatic transmissions currently display the gear lever sequence and identify the shift lever position of the automobile. Based on the information in your letter, the agency understands that you propose to modify the display in such a way that "the actual gear selection would not be indicated (as is the case of current manual transmissions)." The pattern of the gear positions would be embossed either on the instrument panel or on the shift lever handle.

Paragraph S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 states that the "identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Emphasis added. 49 CFR S571.102. NHTSA interprets "position" to mean the position of the gears in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions.

You should note that FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, also applies to the display of automatic gear positions. Paragraph S5 of the standard requires that, inter alia, each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard shall meet the requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of such display. Since "gear position" is listed under S5.1, and "Automatic Gear Position" is listed under Table 2, the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 apply to the display of shift lever positions in vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock and Transmission Braking Effect.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

In order to provide more flexibility in interior styling, Mazda is considering modifying the display of shift lever positions for automatic transmission equipped vehicles.

Currently, the display of gear positions is used simultaneously to indicate actual gear selection (located at the base of the shift lever on the center floor console). The modification would delete the display at the shift lever base and emboss the selection positions either on the instrument panel (visible to the driver) or on the shift lever handle. The gear sequence would remain the same as currently used and as described in Section 3.1.1. The actual gear selection would not be indicated (as is the case of current annual transmissions).

Mazda assumes this modification would still conform to the criteria described in Section 3.2 of Safety Standard 102. The result would be greater freedom in the area of occupant compartment design. Please comment on this assumption and any further relevent items.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager

HN/ab

ID: 1984-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation -- C.I. Nielsen, III, Vice President, Marketing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/28/70 letter from Roger H. Compton to E.W. Bernitt (L.W. Kermitt), Jeep Corporation

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

In response to your letter of February 16, 1984, I enclose a copy of the letter of October 28, 1970, to AMC that you requested. The interpretation remains valid. There is no charge for the letter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure 10/28/70 letter from Roger H. Compton to E.W. Bernitt omitted here.

February 16, 1984

Gentlemen:

We are writing to you at this time to request a copy of a "letter of intent" regarding compliance with DOT-108 para S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7.

It has been suggested we get a copy of this letter from you before proceeding on the design on a multi-function tail light.

The "letter of intent" we are referring to is Mr. Roger Compton's October 23, 1970 letter to AMC-Jeep regarding what area is considered "measurable" to meet the requirements.

If there is a charge for this requested copy, and it is under $25.00 please send the letter with the invoice and we will pay it promptly. If the charges are in excess of $25.00, please advise same before proceeding any further.

Thank you in advance for your prompt response to our request.

Sincerely,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C. I. Nielsen III Vice President -Marketing

CIN:mk

ID: 1984-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Police -- Richard W. Janney, Captain Commander

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Richard W. Janney, Captain Commander, A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie, MD 21062

This is to follow-up your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's letter of December 20, 1983, on Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I hope that the following discussion will clarify the relationship between the requirements of Standard No. 205 and the render inoperative provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act).

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements, including requirements for light transmittance and abrasion resistance, for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on the vehicle type involved and the place in the vehicle where the glazing is used. For example, the luminous transmittance and abrasion resistance requirements apply to all windows in a passenger car, but only to windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver in a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle.

The application of tinting materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act if it knowingly installed in a passenger car a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. In each case, there will be a factual question of whether the glazing material, as tinted, will continue to meet the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard.

If you are aware of any manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair shops that are in apparent violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), please provide information concerning those apparent violations to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. The information should be sent to:

Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 6113 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 2059O

I hope this discussion will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. Nakaya -- Office Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1984, asking three questions concerning the compliance test procedures of Standard No. 219 that would be used in testing a truck with a forward tilt cabin. The answers to your questions are discussed below.

You first asked whether in doing the compliance test, "may the test sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?" In conducting Standard No. 210 compliance tests, the agency conducts the test on a fully assembled vehicle (i.e., cabin and chassis/frame).

You then asked whether the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry could be reinforced during the testing. The answer is no; the agency tests the vehicle as manufactured.

Finally, you asked "should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanism be considered within the scope" of the Standard No. 210 compliance testing. The answer is no. The purpose of the standard is to measure the performance of the seat belt anchorages. A failure of the tilt cab latch would not constitute a failure of Standard No. 210. I must note, however, that a failure of a tilt cab latch under the loading experienced during a Standard No. 210 compliance test could raise the question of whether the latch contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I urge you to design the latch in such a manner that it will withstand the loads generated during a crash.

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

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

February 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 400 7th S.W. Washington, DC 20590

re: Interpretation of Compliance Testing Criteria - Safety Standard 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda, after reviewing our test procedures used to verify compliance with Standard 210, has a number of questions relating to truck vehicles equipped with a forward tilt cabin:

1. When a forward tilt cabin equipped truck is to be tested for seat belt assembly anchorage performance, may the test sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?

2. If just the cabin is required, would it be possible to reinforce the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry? If the chassis/frame is required, would such reinforcement be allowed?

3. When performing Standard 210 compliance testing, should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanisms be considered within the scope of their Standard 210 compliance varification testing?

Please respond to these questions and discuss any issues relevant to the accurate interpretation of Standard 210 testing procedures and criteria at your earliest convenience.

Thank you, Sincerely, Original signed by H. Nakaya