ID: 08-006052drn vasatko

ID: Connreg21936

Harry C. Gough, P.E.
Automotive Engineering
Professional Specialist
State of Connecticut
Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161





Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your letter asking whether a Connecticut State regulation (Sec. 14-103d-1, Identification of vehicles, May 11, 1984) regarding compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles is preempted by Federal law, in light of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 303 and 304. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You enclosed a copy of the regulation which specifies exterior markings for vehicles powered by pressurized flammable gases. You state that the purpose for the regulation is to quickly identify the fuel type for fire and rescue personnel when responding to crashes.

As discussed below, State safety standards applicable to CNG fuel system integrity are generally preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, and FMVSS No. 303. However, it is our opinion that the Connecticut State exterior marking requirement for CNG vehicles is not preempted under our statute because the aspect of performance it addresses is not fuel system integrity but instead information for emergency personnel. One aspect, however, of the exterior marking requirement for CNG vehicles - the horizontally oriented diamond shaped sign - may be preempted under Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. This issue is briefly touched upon towards the end of this letter.

Connecticut's regulation states, in relevant part:

Any vehicle within the state which carries any pressurized gas as its fuel in a tank attached to the vehicle in any concealed area, including but not limited to, trunks, compartments or under such vehicle pursuant to Public Act No. 83-317 shall have displayed on its exterior the words "Pressurized Flammable Gas" in block letters at least two inches high (50.8mm), which letters shall be contrasting colors and shall be placed as near as possible to the area where the tank is located. In lieu of the above described lettering a vehicle which is required to be so identified may have permanently affixed to its exterior a reflectorized weather resistant sign which shall be a horizontally oriented diamond the center height of which shall be two-thirds (2/3) of the centerline length and of sufficient size to accommodate block lettering of at least 50.8 mm (2 inches) and further described as follows:

(a) In the case of vehicles using compressed natural gas or liquified natural gas, in silver or white letters CNG centered on a blue background. . . .

Further, the regulation states:

(e)(1) each vehicle required to be identified pursuant to Public Act No. 83-317 shall have the required sign, label or placard affixed to either the body of the vehicle as near as is practicable to the filling connection or directly upon the fuel tank at the filling connection so as to be clearly legible when viewed at a distance of 7.6 meters (25 feet) perpendicular to the vehicle upon which it is displayed.

(2) Unless the sign, label or placard required pursuant to subdivision (1) of this section is located as here-in-after provided, each motor vehicle shall in addition to the identification required pursuant to subdivision (1) have an additional sign, label or placard affixed to the back of the vehicle, not including the bumper, within 76 cm (30 inches) of the license plate which shall be clearly legible when viewed at a distance of 7.6 meters (25 feet) directly to the rear of the motor vehicle on which it is displayed.

49 U.S.C. 30103(b) states in relevant part:

When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State...may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.

Under 30103, Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard.

NHTSA has issued FMVSSs to ensure the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by CNG. FMVSS No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles (49 CFR 571.303), regulates the fuel system integrity of CNG light vehicles and all school buses. FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity (49 CFR 571.304), regulates the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles.

FMVSS No. 303 at S5.3 requires that each CNG vehicle shall be permanently labeled, near the vehicle refueling connection, with the following statements:

(1) "Service pressure _______ kPa (_______ psig)" (S5.3.1), and

(2) "See instructions on fuel container for inspection and service life" (S5.3.2).

Section S5.3 further requires that the required information shall be visible to a person standing next to the vehicle during refueling, in English, and in letters and numbers that are not less than 4.76mm (3/16 inch) high.

FMVSS No. 304 at S7.4, Labeling, states that each CNG fuel container shall be permanently labeled with the following statements or information:

(a) "If there is a question about the proper use, installation, or maintenance of this container, contact ______," inserting the CNG fuel container manufacturer's name, address and telephone number.

(b) "Manufactured in ______," inserting the month and year of the manufacture of the CNG fuel container.

(c) "Service pressure ______kPa, (psig ______)."

(d) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the CNG container manufacturer that the container complies with all requirements of this standard.

(e) The container designation (e.g., Type 1, 2, 3, 4).

(f) "CNG Only."

(g) "This container should be visually inspected after a motor vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, for damage or deterioration."

(h) "Do Not Use After ______," inserting the month and year that mark the end of the manufacturer's recommended service life for the container.

Section S7.4 further requires that any label affixed to the container in compliance with this section shall remain in place and be legible for the manufacturer's recommended service life of the container. The information shall be in English and in letters and numbers that are at least 6.35 mm (1/4 inch) high.

Our statute would preempt State requirements of general applicability which address CNG fuel system integrity, including ones governing labeling intending to insure the integrity of the vehicle fuel system. The State requirements you asked about, however, are intended to allow fire and rescue personnel to quickly identify the fuel type when responding to crashes involving CNG vehicles and thus would not be regarded by NHTSA as relating to the same aspect of performance as the labeling requirements of FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304. Therefore, the State regulation would not be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b).

Even if a State requirement is not expressly preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), it may be impliedly preempted if it creates an actual conflict with a NHTSA safety standard, either because it would be impossible to comply with both State and Federal requirements or because the judgment would "stand as an obstacle to" or "frustrate the purpose of" Federal law. We do not see any reason why the Connecticut exterior marking requirement would create a conflict with our safety standards, since the markings required by Connecticut law would not need to be in a location at which a Federally-required label must appear.

In addition to the Federal laws we administer, there could be preemption issues concerning Federal laws administered by the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. We suggest that you contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 for information concerning possible preemption under its program.

Another agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized under the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce and to preempt non-Federal requirements under certain circumstances. RSPA informs us that a state, local, or tribal placarding requirement is preempted if it is not substantively the same as Federal placarding requirements. RSPA states that while in this instance neither Federal hazmat law nor the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 C.F.R. parts 171-180) require placarding of CNG vehicles, one aspect of Connecticut's exterior marking requirement for CNG vehicles - the horizontally oriented diamond shaped sign - may be preempted under Federal hazardous materials transportation law because of its physical similarities to the hazardous materials placards required under HMR, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. We suggest that you seek an interpretation on this issue from RSPA. You may contact RSPA at (202) 366-4400.

In closing, we want to make clear that we are not providing any views with respect to the merits of the State requirement regarding the identification of vehicles using pressurized gases as motor vehicle fuels. This letter only addresses the preemption issue you raised.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address of by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:303#304
d.4/19/01

ID: 1983-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/83

FROM: Frank Berndt, NHTSA

TO: Koji Tokunaga -- Manager of Engineering, Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager of Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This responds to your letter of May 26, 1983, asking whether a continuous loop seat belt system you are considering would comply with the requirments of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Continuous seat belt systems are permissible under Safety Standard No. 208 if certain conditions are met. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of Type 2 belts "by means of an emergency locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems if the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the danger of submarining due to a slack lap belt, the agency has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1.

To conform to the requirements, the buckle of the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjusting. This means that when the belt is buckled by the vehicle occupant, the retractor must be capable of cinching the lap belt tightly around the occupant's pelvic area (regardless of where the buckle tongue is located along the belt webbing when the belt is fastened). The friction in the buckle tongue cannot be so high that the occupant must manually pull the belt webbing through the tongue to tighten the lap belt.

We note your statement that the one-way frictional bar included in your contemplated belt design "permits the wearer to fasten the lap belt more tightly than the tension from the ELR usually achieves." This is certainly permissible, provided the ELR does tighten the belt sufficiently for the lap belt to be considered automatically adjustable. You will have to make this determination, however. Please note that it is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether or not its belt design complies with the standard. The agency does not offer advance approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. Further, the agency does not make determination of compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment prior to the manufacturer's certification of that vehicle or equipment.

I hope this clarification will be of help to you in your design plans.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Subject: New Seat Belt System - Compliance with FMVSS 208. S7.1.1

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to request your confirmation on the interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 in the context of our new seat belt system which we plan to use as soon as possible for the front outboard seating postions on our passenger cars.

This belt system is of a continous webbing loop type with an emergency locking retractor (ELR) installed on the lower part of the B-pillar. The belt webbing goes up from the ELR through a metal ring mounted on the upper part of the B-pillar, then downward diagonally across the occupant's upper torso, through a latch plate which couples the belt to the inboard buckle. Then sideways across the occupant's lap, and to the outboard anchor.

The new feature of this design is a one-way frictional bar incorporated in the latch plate which in effect is the junction between lap and shoulder portions of the webbing. This device permits the wearer to fasten the lap belt more tightly than the tension from the ELR usually achieves, while preventing the lap belt from loosening out as long as the belt is worn. When the belt is worn by the occupant, any slack in the lap belt is removed by his action to pull out the shoulder belt from the retractor. Even when he did not tighten the lap belt snugly, tensions on the shoulder belt caused by his normal motions during vehicle operation work to cause the slack in the lap belt to be taken up by the retractor.

A webbing tension-relieving device is not incorporated in this belt system.

We believe this design meets the intent of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 because the one-way feature of the latch plates does no interfere with the function of the single retractor to automatically adjust the tension of the lap belt portion ot prevent excessive slack as mentioned in the interpretation letters issued by NHTSA to Renault (dated Sept. 25, 1972) General Motors (dated March 27, 1975) and to Chrysler (dated June 13, 1975).

We request your letter of confirmation regarding this interpretation of FMVSS 208 S7.1.1 in the context of the belt system design described above. Since our final tooling commitments to produce this system must be made very shortly, we would appreciate your prompt review and response.

We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager of Engineering

ID: nht87-1.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Takashi Shimoda -- Chief of Quality Assurance Section, Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section Nichirin Rubber Industrial Co., Ltd. 1118, Sazuchi, Besso-cho Himeji-City, 671-02 JAPAN

This responds to your letter to our office asking two questions about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. I am pleased to be of assistance.

In your letter, you explain that your company plans to export brake hose assemblies to the United States that are made of resin and other materials. You first ask whether Standard No. 106 applies "equally" to all brake hoses and assemblies regardless of the materials used in their manufacture. Your understanding is correct. Brake hoses and brake hose assemblies may be made from any material as long as they can meet all applicable performance requirements of the standard.

Your second question concerns the standard's whip resistance requirement of S5.3.3 and the whip resistance test of S6.3, You ask for confirmation that cracks in hose specimen are acceptable under S5.3.3 provided that there is no leakage from the hose assembly. Your understanding is correct. S5.3.3 states: "A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours (S6.3)." The standard defines "rupture" as "any failure that results in separation of a brake hose from its end fitting or in leakage." The determining factor for the whip resistance requirement is thus the pressure maintained by the system. If there is no pressure loss in the system, the brake hose assembly meets S5.3.3, regardless of the presence of cracks in the hose specimen. Please note, however, that although cracks in themselves do not constitute a failure of S5.3.3, the development of cracks caused by exposure to ozone is important for the ozone resistance requirement of S5.3.10.

Since you are planning to import your products into the United States, I am enclosing copies to two procedural rules which apply to all manufacturers subject to the regulations of this agency. The first is 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification. This rule requires your company to submit its name, address and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to this agency within 30 days after it imports its products into this country.

The other rule is 49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules. Subpart D of this regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, and must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer 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 manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its 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 United States corporation; and,

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

In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

(procedural rules 49 CFR Part 566 and Part 551) omitted

Dear Sir:

Re: Inquiry on FMVSS No. 106 - Brake Hose

We are a manufacturer of brake hoses, and are registered at NHTSA with a maker identification code "NCRN".

Now, we are planning to export to the U.S. brake hose assemblies made of resin which are individually built into motor cycles.

We are aware that the brake hose assemblies are subject to control under FMVSS No. 106.

In this connection, we ask you a few questions on interpretations of FMVSS No. 106.

Question 1. FMVSS No. 106 provides for no regulations on the materials used. We interpret it to equally apply, whether the material is rubber or resin. Is this understanding justifiable?

For the inner tubes and outer covers of the brake hoses we are now manufacturing, we are using rubber.

But under a future plan, we schedule to use nylon for the inner tubes, and thermoplastic polyester resin for the outer covers.

Question 2. On whip resistance:

The standard sets forth the requirement s follows;

A hydraulic brake hose assembly shall not rupture, when run continuously on a flexing machine for 35 hours.

In this test, the time elapsed before a hose assembly, while being tested, has ruptured, causing water inside to leak out, is recorded, to make the judgment on its whip resistance.

If even when cracks have developed which have not lead to leakage from the hose which is under testing, the hose shows no evidence of leakage, while the tester is running, then, we judge this hose acceptable. Is this judgment right?

Thanking you for your early answer.

Very sincerely yours,

Takashi Shimoda Chief of Quality Assurance Section NICHIRIN RUBBER INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD.

ID: 77-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/08/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. K. Hofferberth for R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Volkswagen's March 9, 1977, petition for reconsideration of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

Procedures for processing petitions for reconsideration are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 553. Part 553.35(c) states that "[the] Administrator does not consider repetitious petitions." Your March 9 petition raises two issues that were also discussed in your February 20, 1976, petition for reconsideration. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) carefully considered those issues in our February 7, 1977 (42 FR 7140) response to petitions for reconsideration. Since the agency has considered these issues previously, the NHTSA declines to consider them again as you suggest.

SINCERELY,

Volkswagon of America, Inc.

March 9, 1977

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Docket 71-19, Notice 06; Docket 75-32, Notice 02 -- Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, FMVSS 120, Petition for Reconsideration

We respectfully submit enclosed the petition of Volkswagen-werk Aktiengesellschaft and Audi NSU Auto Union AG with respect to "Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars," as called for by the above docket.

Joseph W. Kennebeck Manager, Emissions, Safety and Development

VOLKSWAGEN PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION, FMVSS 120, DOCKET 71-19, NOTICE 06; DOCKET 75-32, NOTICE 02

In our Petition for Reconsideration of February 20, 1976, Volkswagen requested, among other things, that the Administration reconsider those parts of FMVSS 120 that required rims be marked:

1. With the letter "D" for DIN, and, 2. With a rim size designation having the diameter preceding the width.

Docket 71-19, Notice 06; Docket 75-32, Notice 02 (42FR7140) denied our requests for amendment.

In the following, we present new facts and ask that the administration reconsider its decision not to amend the standard.

Specifically, we request that S 5.2 be amended so that the full letter abbreviation of the source organization be required to designate the organization, and that in the rim size designation, the width be required to proceed the diameter.

Attachment "A" shows a wheel we marked to comply with German law and our suggested changes to S 5.2 of FMVSS 120. As can be seen there is extremely little flat space on the disc to accept additional markings. Marking the other side of the wheel would require new tooling, and might interfere with the wheel/drum interface. In our previous petition, we explained the reasons for not being able to mark the rims.

In spite of the fact that ISO is considering a standard that would recommend specifying rims by diameter x width, which may or may not become part of the final standard, the DIN still specifies that one-piece, single-manufacturer wheels have their discs marked with the rim size and type, with the width preceding the diameter, (Ref. attachment 4 of our petition of February 20, 1976). This is in addition to the other DIN information.

In its response to Volkswagen's petition of February 20, the NHTSA stated, "This order of information is being considered as the uniform practice to be adopted by the International Standards Organization. For reason of uniformity, the requests are denied." According to our information, the draft proposal submitted by the U.S. delegation to ISO has not been voted upon, and there are other proposals from European delegates which would specify the designation order as width x diameter. This uniformity argument, then, does not apply.

In its denial of permission to use the letters "DIN" to designate the source organization, the Administration stated that ". . . they are undesirable in the interests of maintaining uniformity and comprehension." We submit that the addition of a new letter, e.g., "D", would upset the current uniformity achieved by accepted practice of using the letters "DIN," and interfere with comprehension since the "DIN" letters are well known in automotive circles around the world, while the letter "D" would not be understood, and, in fact, might be confused with load ratings. We note that under Notice 2, which proposed the use of "a designation to indicate the source of the published dimensions to which the rim conforms . . .," the "DIN" letters would have been acceptable. If the full letters of the abbreviation for the source organization were now required by the NHTSA, a greater uniformity would be achieved.

We suggest that it is contrary to logic for a standard to require that the acronym for an organization recognized by that standard be abbreviated when that acronym is already in use on subject equipment.

Regarding the rim designation, in 41FR3478, it is stated, "The tires must be fitted to rims which have been designated by the tire manufacturer, in accordance with S 4.4 of Standard No. 109 or S 5.1 of Standard No. 119, as suitable for use with those tires. The designations are made by listing the tire-rim matching information in one of seven industry-maintained publications . . ." In the case of the DIN maintained publications, the rim size is designated width x diameter. Further, S 5.1.1, states, ". . . each vehicle . . . shall be equipped . . . with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires . . ." In the case of German tire manufacturers, the subject listing will be width x diameter.

We ask for your answer to this petition for reconsideration as early as possible because production lead time in wheel manufacturing is such that if retooling is required, it must be started no later than April 1 in order to comply with this standard's deadline of September 1, 1977.

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht78-3.8

DATE: 05/12/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Susan H. Soodek

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Federal Safety Standard No. 205 specifies requirements limiting the reflectivity of glazing materials. You are concerned with the lack of uniformity in state laws that prohibit nontransparent or reflective windows in motor vehicles.

The stated purpose of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. The standard does not prohibit reflective glazing, nor does it specify requirements that would limit the degree of reflectivity of glazing materials.

Since reflectivity is not an aspect of performance governed by Federal safety standards, state laws concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted by Standard No. 205. Safety Standard No. 205 does, however, specify requirements for the luminous transmittance of glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Therefore, state laws prohibiting nontransparent windows would be preempted if they attempted to regulate the glazing manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)). State regulations applicable to the vehicle owner or user would not be preempted, on the other hand, since the Federal regulation is only applicable to the manufacturer. Therefore, a state law could prohibit the application of a nontransparent decal on a window by a vehicle owner, for example.

I am enclosing a copy of the California Highway Patrol petition for rulemaking regarding glazing abrasion requirements and glazing reflectivity. A notice concerning this petition will be issued at some time in the near future.

I must point out that our statutory authority requires all safety standards to be reasonable, objective and to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. The agency cannot, therefore, regulate an aspect of motor vehicle performance or design if there is no data or evidence indicating that a safety problem exists.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & ACCESSORIES ASSOCIATION

March 30, 1978

Joseph Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Levin:

This letter is to request a formal interpretation of FMVSS #205, Glazing Materials, as to the permissibility of reflective material. In addition, we have posed specific questions under #205 regarding federal jurisdiction and applicability of the Standard. Our desire is to prevent the possible emergence of fifty varying state laws governing reflectance.

May we provide an explanation of our interest, and previous communication with the NHTSA on the subject.

APAA is a national trade association representing nearly 1400 manufacturers, retailers, wholesale distributors, and independent sales agents doing business in the volume aftermarket industry. Among our members are manufacturers of a variety of window covering materials, including screens, reflective materials, and tinted materials.

As a service to these manufacturers and our retailers, we attempt to keep abreast of state laws bearing upon the sale and use of various window covering materials. The following states have enacted regulations prohibiting nontransparent or reflective windows: Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Ohio, Utah, and Virginia. The states of California and Pennsylvania are considering the same. Lesser restrictions exist in Maryland, New Mexico, and Texas. With only two exceptions, the terms "nontransparent" and "reflective" are undefined and enforcement is left to the judgement of police, the Highway Patrol, or an inspection official. (See enclosed APAA prepared summary bulletin). This lack of definition has resulted in violations for windows which actually complied with federal visibility requirements as defined by ANSI Z26.

Yet, some of the states have demanded recall of reflective windows, the related costs and logistical problems of which severely disrupt interstate commerce and can drive a small manufacturer out of business. Uniformity, through federal preemption, would allow our manufacturers to comply in "good faith" with reflectance requirements.

On March 13, Mr. Guy Hunter (engineer) and Mr. Hugh Oates (legal adviser) to FMVSS # 205 met with Mr. Russ Simmons of West Custom Windows, an APAA-member company, Mr. Julian C. Morris, APAA President, and myself to discuss the association's request for an amendment to the standard to address reflectance levels.

We were advised the NHTSA may be considering the reflectance issue in response to a petition filed last year by the California Highway Patrol. May we be furnished with a copy of the CHP's petition and be apprised of rulemaking status?

Presumably, the Administration has not previously addressed reflectivity in FMVSS #205 because reflective windows have not created an established safety hazard. However, could not an amendment be made on the basis of benefits in safety from filtering out glare or benefits in fuel economy from the insulation properties of reflective material? What type of data is acceptable to demonstrate that establishing an acceptable percentage reflectance level would result in safety and fuel economy benefits?

A legal opinion from your office would provide clarification that the federal standard does not prohibit reflective material. The crux of the problem, it would appear, lies in applicability of FMVSS #205. At the March 13 meeting at NHTSA headquarters, staff advised us that the standard applies to the vehicle manufacturer, not the motorist. Are the states then on sound legal ground to regulate the vehicle owner, even a state's interpretation of "nontransparency" is stricter than the visibility definition incorporated by #205?

Your response to these questions will, hopefully, provide reasonable guidelines for dealing with the existing ambiguities.

Susan H. Soodek Assistant Director, Government Affairs & Liaison

[ENC. OMITTED]

ID: nht78-1.29

DATE: 12/18/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 18 1978

NOA-30

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer Regulatory Affairs Volvo of America Corporation Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Dear Mr. Friberg:

This is in response to your letter of November 1, 1978, asking whether the Volvo "Child Cushion" must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems. You state that the "Child Cushion" is "designed to be used by children in the approximate age range of 6 to 12 years" for the purpose of raising the child "so that the seat belt system properly distributes deceleration forces over the child's torso in the event of impact, and to greatly reduce the probability of 'submarining'."

Section 3 of Standard No. 213 currently defines a "child seating system" as "an item of motor vehicle equipment for seating a child being transported in a motor vehicle." In adopting that definition, the agency intended to cover all devices designed to seat children in motor vehicles, regardless whether a device provides restraint (38 FR 7562,1973). Although you state that the Volvo "Child Cushion" is "in itself not a restraint system" it would be covered by Standard No. 213 if it is designed to seat a child.

As you point out, Standard No. 213 does not currently specify the size or age range of children to which the standard is applicable, while proposed Standard No. 213-80, Child Restraint Systems, does specify a size range (43 FR 21470, 1978). Section 4 of the proposed new standard defines a "child restraint system" as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds."

Although current Standard No. 213 does not specify the size and age range of the children intended to be protected, an upper limit of 50 pounds is indicated by a number of the standard's requirements. Section 5 of Standard No. 213 provides that the torso block to be used in conducting the static tests specified in the standard is the same torso block as used in Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to test Type 3 belt assemblies. Standard No. 209 defines a Type 3 assembly as "a combination pelvic and upper torso restraint for persons weighing not more than 50 pounds or 23 kilograms and capable of sitting upright by themselves, that is children in the approximate age range of 8 months to 6 years." In addition, the static load requirements of Section 4.11 of Standard No. 213 were designed to reflect the loads that would be imposed on a 40-50 pound child in a 30 mph crash (35 FR 5120, 35 FR 14778, 1970). Therefore, Standard No. 213, like proposed Standard No. 213-80, is intended to apply only to child restraints for children weighing 50 pounds or under.

If the Volvo "Child Cushion" is designed only for children larger than those intended to be covered by Standard No. 213, the "Child Cushion" would not be required to meet the performance requirements of the standard. However, the agency is interested in learning of any test data that Volvo has comparing the protection provided by use of the "Child Cushion" and a three-point belt with the protection provided by use of only a three-point belt. A representative of the agency's rulemaking office will contact you concerning this request. Likewise, in order to ensure the safe use of the Volvo "Child Cushion, it is recommended that the device be clearly and permanently labelled to show that it is to be used with a three-point belt only by a specific size and age range of children.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 1, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation, FMVSS No. 213

Dear Mr. Levin:

Volvo has developed a device which extends the protection of a vehicle's seat belt system to children too large to benefit from child seating systems currently on the market. This item is called the Volvo Child Cushion, and is designed to be used by children in the approximate age range of 6 to 12 years.

The Child Cushion is in itself not a restraint system; its purpose is to raise the child so that the seat belt system properly distributes decelleration forces over the child's torso in the event of impact, and to greatly reduce the probability of "submarining".

We feel that this device fills a need for adequate protection for children six years of age and older; in other words, too big for a child seat, but too small to derive full benefit from seat belts alone. The Child Cushion may be used in most vehicles with a 3-point seat belt system.

In the current FMVSS No. 213, there is no definition of the size or age range for which the standard is applicable. In the proposed FMVSS No. 213-80, however, it is clear that the standard is designed to protect children weighing 50 pounds or less, or younger than 5 years old. This is below the range for which the Child Cushion is intended. Naturally, the cushion would have to be clearly labelled to reflect the age and/or weight limitations of its use.

In our opinion, the child cushion is designed for use by children larger than those covered by FMVSS No. 213. The standard is therefore not applicable to the Volvo Child Cushion. Please advise as to whether you agree with this interpretation.

The enclosed literature illustrates the design and use of the Volvo Child Cushion.

Please let me know if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning & Development

Norman Friberg, P.E. Engineer, Regulatory Affairs

NF/dpl ENCLOSURE

ID: nht75-4.10

DATE: 06/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toledo Clutch & Brake Service, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 21, 1975, questions whether a 121-equipped chassis must be certified to Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, after installation of a tractor conversion kit, whether an antilock wiring harness may be spliced for purposes of frame extension, whether additional weight (such as a body) or an axle may be added to a vehicle after it is sold and put into use, and whether the standard regulates the replacement of worn brake components. You state that it should be assumed that the vehicle has been delivered to the first user.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a vehicle which does not comply with all applicable standards in effect on the date of manufacture. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (1) (A)). However, the Act also provides that this prohibition no longer applies to a vehicle (except in the case of importation) after the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (1)). The Act also prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or design (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)).

These provisions mean that the manufacturer of the vehicle must assume responsibility for compliance and certification. Most trucks are built in several stages and completed by final-stage manufacturers like yourself. Cab-chassis are only incomplete vehicles which have not been certified, and therefore, whoever completes the vehicle and subsequently sells it or introduces it on the public highway must certify its compliance. In answer to your first question, it is the responsibility of the person who installs the fifth wheel, tractor protection system, etc., to certify compliance, whether or not the vehicle has been delivered to the first user. The owner himself would qualify as a final-stage manufacturer if he installed the conversion kit.

In answer to your third and fourth questions, the installation would be subject to certification unless it followed "the first purchase of it in good faith for purposes other than resale." "Good faith" means that the first user could not, for example, buy a completed vehicle, drive it around the block and then install a non-conforming tag axle. Installation of a body after delivery to the first purchaser without compliance with Standard No. 121 would in most cases not appear to be good faith because the vehicle is not capable of use without the body.

It is permissible to make modifications to a vehicle that is already in service after the first purchase in good faith. A private party may make any change, but as noted above, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business such as yours cannot "knowingly render inoperative" a safety device in the process of modification. In answer to question number five, Standard No. 121 regulates the manufacture of new vehicles only and does not contain provisions which limit use of replacement parts. The only restriction in replacement would be to avoid knowingly rendering inoperative safety devices or design.

In answer to question number three, the standard establishes performance levels and does not contain any design requirements concerning the wiring harness of antilock systems. We would advise that you contact the antilock manufacturer or the vehicle manufacturer as to the wisdom of splicing antilock wiring.

For your information, I enclose a discussion of the standard which addresses final-stage manufacture at page seven.

YOURS TRULY,

April 21, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Toledo Clutch & Brake Service, Inc. is a "Heavy Duty" brake shop. That is the majority of our sales is to fleets, school buses and off road equipment (earth moving equipment, cranes, quarry vehicles, etc.). By the nature of our business we must be and are a very safety oriented business, having held classes, clinics and seminars on brakes, brake safety and related subjects. We have followed the course of FMVSS 121 since its original proposal nearly five years ago. Our customers, and many of our competitors customers have relied on us to give them the latest up-date on FMVSS 121. However, since its implementation this year, many legal questions have arisen in the aftermarket that we feel only the Department of Transportation can clarify. We have listed a number of actual circumstances and some cases that we feel will arise in the future. We would like to have the Department of Transportations interpretation of these questions, assuming in all cases, except where noted, that the vehicle has been delivered to the first user with straight air brakes, and that any materials added comply with FMVSS 121:

1. A vehicle chassis is purchased, having no body (van, dump, stake, etc.), with the intention of converting to a tractor. Can a tractor convertion kit (hand valvue, tractor protection system and trailer outlets) be added after delivery to the first user, without recertification?

2. Can a truck frame be extended after delivery to the first user? If so, will a new anti-skid wiring harness be required or can the original one be spliced?

3. Can a tag axle be added to a vehicle that is already in service? A lift axle? A third axle to trailer? A twin screw to a tractor?

4. After delivery to the first user, can additional weight be added to a vehicle, such as saddle tanks, bodies, material to comply with up dated noise abatement laws etc?

5. When brake system parts (including foundation brake parts) wear out or become defective, through normal usage, can they be replaced with parts that are competetive with original equipment parts so long as the competetive or replacement parts are certified to comply with FMVSS 121?

Richard Schlichting President TOLEDO CLUTCH & BRAKE SERVICE, INC.

ID: nht87-2.90

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/09/87

FROM: TERRY K. BROCK -- COONS MANUFACTURING NATIONAL SALES MANAGER

TO: STEVE KRATZKE -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: CLARIFICATION OF FMVSS CODE #217

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO TERRY K. BROCK; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 217; LETTER DATED 08/20/87 FROM TERRY K BROCK TO SEBASTIAN MESSINA; LETTER DATED 08/28/87 FROM ST MESSINA TO TERRY K BROCK RE COONS MANUFACTURING INC. DIAMOND VIP BUS 25 PASSENGERS MC 157-87

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kratzke,

Pursuant to our telephone conversation regarding Coons Manufacturing, Inc.'s desire to provide adequate emergency escapes per FMVSS Code #217 in our Diamond VIP mini buses, I write.

Mr. S. T. Messina, Chief Motor Carrier Inspections and Investigations of the State of New Jersey, Department of Transportation has denied certification for a 25 passenger bus recently delivered to the State of New Jersey. Please refer to the attached letter dated August 28, 1987.

It is very much a concern to Coons Manufacturing, Inc. that we are meeting the FMVSS Code #217. However, we along with other manufacturers of this type bus, have in the past considered our front entrance door, which is labeled and equipped with the p roper emergency release mechanisms per the above referenced regulation, as an emergency side exit. Please refer to the attached sample materials of two competitors. We have enclosed diagrams of this electric entrance door as well as photos for your ref erence. We are requesting you to better assist us in understanding why this is unacceptable to use as one of the required side emergency exits. Also, on the driver's side we have in the past, considered the driver's window which is 20" x 20" clear open ing or 400 square inches as an additional emergency side exit.

Please respond as soon as possible as to whether or not our existing emergency exits provide adequate escape per FMVSS Code #217. If they do not, please state what would be required in addition to what we are already providing. It is our desire to c ooperate to the fullest regarding this matter. Thank you for your assistance.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht76-2.35

DATE: 06/02/76

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

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 20, 1976, asking for an amendment of S4.1.1.21 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to allow a plus tolerance of 7.5 percent on maximum wattage requirements for Type 1A and 2A headlamps.

I enclose a copy of an interpretation furnished the General Electric Company which states that such a tolerance is allowed. However, to clarify our intent we plan to amend Standard No. 108 in the near future in the manner that you suggest.

YOURS TRULY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

April 20, 1976

Att.: E. T. Driver Director, Office of Crash Avoidance Motor Vehicle Programs

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

In item (c) of S4.1.1.33, FMVSS No.108 (41F.R. 1483 - January 8, 1976), a tolerance of +7.5% is allowed to the maximum wattage of each circular unit of automotive headlamps.

On the other hand, in item (b) of S4.1.1.21, FMVSS No.108 (40F.R. 54426 - November 24, 1975), such tolerance is not clearly specified for rectangular units.

From the table 3, SAE J573f, however, in case of these rectangular units, we noted, by calculation based on the maximum amperages specified there, that almost the same tolerances are allowed to the maximum wattages as those allowed by S4.1.1.33, FMVSS No.108.

Therefore, we would like to interprete the provision regarding the maximum wattages of rectangular units as that the same tolerance of +7.5% is also being allowed by you. Your comments on this matter is requested.

Furthermore, if such interpretation is not accepted by you, we ask you to amend the provision of S4.1.1.21 so that the same tolerance of +7.5% which is now being allowed for circular units may also be allowed to the maximum wattages of type 1A and type 2A rectangular units.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

T. Takeda Manager, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.