ID: 1984-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Margaret Moore Oba -- Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MS. Margaret Moore Oba Hino Motors (U.S.A.) Inc. 200 Park Avenue, Suite 4116-12 New York, New York 10166

This responds to your March 12, 1984 letter regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to motor vehicles imported into Guam.

Under sections 102(8), 102(9), and 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. 1391(8), 1391(9), and 1397(a)(1)(A), motor vehicles introduced into commerce in Guam are subject to Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standards. In general, the standards apply to the same extent to vehicles imported into Guam as to those imported into the continental U.S. However, as you note in your letter, FMVSS 103 (windshield defrosting and defogging systems) does not apply outside the continental U.S., as specified in section 3 of that standard. See 49 CFR 571.103. Other standards such as FMVSS 124, which do not limit their applicability to specific geographic areas, apply fully in Guam. Therefore, vehicles imported into Guam must have an accelerator control system which returns the throttle to idle over a temperature range of -40 degrees F. to +125 degrees F.

Original signed by Frank Berndt

March 12, 1984

Dear Mr. Berndt:

1) Re: Applicability of F.M.V.S.S. in Guam

We, Hino Motors, are a heavy duty diesel truck manufacturer, and are interested in importing Class 6 and 7 trucks to Guam and Saipan. We would appreciate if you would be so kind as to clarify the jurisdiction of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (F.M.V.S.S.) in Guam. We are aware that the F.M.V.S.S. were made applicable to Saipan in 1978, and that dispensation from certain standards had been granted until October of 1981. We would like to know if the F.M.V.S.S. are applicable to Guam as well, and also, if there are any similar exceptions due to local conditions.

2) Re: F.M.V.S.S. 124

We would also like to receive clarification of the applicability of F.M.V.S.S. 124, regarding acceleration control systems. F.M.V.S.S. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, is limited in its applicability to the fifty states of the United States. Is F.M.V.S.S. 124, which stipulates that the throttle be able to return to idle despite extreme temperatures ranging from -40oF to +125oF, applicable only to the continental U.S., or does it also apply to Hawaii and territories like Guam and Saipan?

We would greatly appreciate your prompt response to our inquiries. Thank you very much for your kind cooperation.

Original Signed by Margaret Moore Oba

cc: Mr. S. Ikoma, Tech. Div. Tokyo

ID: 1984-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dotech Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Herbert T. Thrower, Jr., P.E. President Dotech, Inc. 306 Clanton Road Charlotte, North Carolina 28210

Dear Mr. Thrower:

This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of my staff asking "is there any reluctance on the part of NHTSA to make a patented device a legal option under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108?"

At present, Standard No. 108 mandates specific items of lighting equipment not optional ones (though "options" as to matters such as size and shape exist among headlamps which are required items). Instead, NHTSA points out that, pursuant to S4.1.3 optional lighting devices (proprietary or not) are allowable, provided that they do not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment the standard requires. When proprietary rights are involved in mandated lighting equipment, manufacturers have been willing to waive their rights.

You have also said that you "presume that other patented automotive devices also must have DOT approval before their optional public use is permissible." I don't know what you have in mind, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, no "approval" by DOT is necessary to market "optional" motor vehicle equipment of any sort. Such equipment is subject only to the general requirement that its installation must not affect the compliance of the vehicle with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

If you have further questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

February 14, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Vinson.

Is there any reluctance on the part of NHTSA to make a patented device a legal option under Federal Motor Vehicle Lighting Code 108?

As you know, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permit use of various patented drugs for optional public use.

I also presume that other patented automotive devices also must have DOT approval before their optional public use is permissible.

Thank you in advance for your comments.

Very truly yours, Dotech, Inc.

Herbert T. Thrower, Jr., P.E. President

HTT,jr/jhc

ID: 1984-1.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Leslie R. Ablondi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Leslie R. Ablondi Pleasant Valley Corporate Center Suite 800 2024 Arkansas Valley Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 7221 2-4237

Dear Mr. Ablondi:

This responds to your March 16, 1984 letter regarding the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111 to an aftermarket rearview mirror which one of your clients proposes to market. This mirror would be attached to the original equipment inside mirror stalk in such a way that the view through the OEM mirror is unimpaired. Your client's mirror would permit the driver to view children in the rear seat of the vehicle.

FMVSS 111 ( see 49 C.F.R. 571.111, copy enclosed) is directly applicable to new motor vehicles only. However, that standard may apply indirectly to aftermarket mirrors through the operation of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). The latter provision prohibits any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from rendering inoperative any "device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle...in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard...." Thus, the installation of a replacement or even a supplemental rearview mirror in a motor vehicle could be unlawful if that installation resulted in a mirror system which did not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 111.

Based on your description of your client's mirror, it does not appear that the aftermarket installation of that mirror would be prohibited under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), since the operation of the OEM mirror system is unaffected by the addition of the aftermarket mirror.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 16, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild, Legal Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Dept. of Transportation 400 7th Street SW Washington D.C. 20509

RE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.

Mr. Fairchild,

By this letter I am requesting a formal opinion as regards to an after market mirror which a client proposes to market. The mirror will attach to the OEM mirror stalk in the center of the windshield and will enable a driver to view children in the rear seat without turning their head. The mirror does not in any way restrict or interfere with the view of the OEM mirror.

In checking with the Dept. of Transportation Rule Making Division, I spoke with a Mr. Kevin Cavey, who advised me the applicable federal standard was Number 111. At that time I requested that Mr. Cavey send me a copy of the standard. To date I have not received any correspondence from Mr. Cavey or anyone else. As Mr. Cavey explained it there are no federal safety standards which relate to aftermarket mirrors being attached to automobiles.

My question is, "are there any restrictions which would prohibit the production, distribution and sale of the proposed mirror?"

If you have available to you would you please send a copy of standard number 111 and any others which are applicable to this case.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration in this matter, I shall await your reply. Should you require further information or have questions that I may answer, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely Yours,

Leslie R. Ablondi c: files d/38/fairchil

ID: 1984-1.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/84 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Truck Equipment Association -- Steven D. Herringshaw, Coordinator of Technical Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Steven D. Herringshaw Coordinator of Technical Services National Truck Equipment Association 25900 Greenfield Road Oak Park, Michigan 48257

Dear Mr. Herringshaw:

This is in response to your letter of February 24, 1984, with respect to mounting requirements for clearance and identification lamps under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your Exhibit A depicts a body mounted on a chassis-cab, with clearance lamps mounted both on the body and chassis-cab, but identification lamps mounted on only the chassis-cab. You have asked whether the truck body must have a set of identification lamps in order to meet Standard No. 108. The answer is yes. In order to comply with the requirements that identification lamps be located as closely as practicable to the top of the vehicle, a set of identification lamps must be provided for the truck body. You may be interested to know that there is a pending proposal which was published on February 22, 1982; a vehicle such as shown in Exhibit A would comply with a single set cf identification lamps mounted on the cab. enclose a copy of the proposal. The agency has taken no further action with respect to it.

In comparing the vehicles in Exhibit A and Exhibit B you have asked whether theone in Exhibit A is "compliant with the intentions of FMVSS 108." As I have just explained, this vehicle is currently noncompliant with the standard, but would comply if the proposal were adopted. The vehicle in Exhibit B meets the standard.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 24, 1984

Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Sirs:

The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA) is a national trade association representing over 900 members of the truck body and truck equipment industry. Our members include manufacturers and distributors of truck bodies, chassis, and every imaginable type of truck accessories and equipment.

On behalf of one of our members, a rather substantial manufacturer of van bodies designed to be mounted on a chassis-cab, we would like to request a ruling or official interpretation cf FMVSS 108, Lights. The bodies in question are at least 80 inches wide, so that the vehicles do require both clearance and identification lamps. The issue being questioned is the clause "...as high as practicable".

Following are some specifics on both the bodies and the chassis. -- The bodies range from approximately 81 inches wide to 102 inches wide. -- The bodies range in height from 18 inches above the top of the cab to 75 inches above the cab (on a 13' 6" vehicle). -- The bodies range from 8 feet to 28 feet in length. -- The chassis used with the bodies in question come equipped from the manufacturer with both clearance and identification lights mounted on the roof of the cab.

The question being posed is: "If the chassis is equipped with clearance and identification lights, and the front of the body is equipped with clearance lights mounted at the highest point and the widest point of the vehicle (see exhibit A), is this a compliant vehicle with FMVSS 108, or does the body require an additional set of identification lights on its front end?"

FMVSS 108 allows the clearance lights on the front of the vehicle to be lower than the top of the vehicle if the widest point is lower (see exhibit B). FMVSS 108 also allows the rear clearance lights to be lower if the identification lights are at the top. The NTEA opinion in the past has been that the vehicle in exhibit A is a safer vehicle than the vehicle in exhibit B, and that the overallsize of the vehicle in exhibit A would be more easily recognizable to approaching motorists than a vehicle with lower clearance lights. This would seem to make vehicle A compliant with the intentions of FMVSS 108. Is this a just opinion?

One additional piece of information which may or may not be relevant is that the cost difference to the final customer could be upwards of $100 without the additional I.D. lights.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours Truly,

Steven D. Herringshaw Coordinator of Technical Services

ID: 1984-1.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/02/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Arent; Fox; Kinter; Plotkin & Kahn -- Lawrence F. Henneberger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/7/74 letter from R.B. Dyson to Engineer/Transit Technology; 7/10/74 letter from R.B. Dyson to Flyer Industries Limited; 11/12/74 letter from R.B. Dyson to The Flxible Company; 4/1/88 (est) letter to Carl Kalpan from Michael M. Finkelstein (A33; Std. 108); 3/7/88 memo to Associate Administrator for Research and Development, NHTSA from Erika Z. Jones; 11/30/81 letter to Kenneth G. Moyer from Frank Berndt

TEXT:

Lawrence F. Henneberger, Esq. Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn 1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C 20036-5339

This is in reply to your letter of September 26, 1983 asking for an interpretation on behalf of your client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company.

You referenced an interpretation of August 31, 1978, which we gave you, also on behalf of Jacobs. Your client manufactures a diesel engine retarder system which would be provided a means to warn following drivers when the system was in use. The specific means of warning discussed in the 1978 letter was to connect the retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system, either as original or aftermarket equipment. We concluded that this installation augmented the hazard warning system, and thus did not impair the hazard warning system within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108. We also concluded that it would not render inoperative the hazard warning system, and thus was not a violation of the "anti-tampering" provision of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Traffic Safety Act.

Apparently, a customer of Jacobs has asked it to wire its warning system through the stop lamps. A separate manually-operated switch will be provided. We understand that when the warning system is operational there is no difference of light intensities when the brakes are applied. You have asked us for a re-interpretation, on the basis of these new facts, that the changed retarcer warning will not violate either paragraph S4.1.3 or section 108(a)(2)(A). You believe that the warning system is still permissible, because the stop lamps when so used will nevertheless indicate that the vehicle is diminishing its speed by braking, and because of interpretations by this office that retarder controls can be incorporated with the foundation brake controls and activated with the foundation brakes.

We have reviewed the 1978 interpretation allowing use of the retarder system through the hazard warning system, and the two 1974 interpretations with reference to incorporation of supplementary braking devices with foundation controls. We agree with your interpretation that the latter interpretations impliedly require activation of the stop lamps when the supplementary braking devices are used. The agency is not prepared at this time to modify either interpretation, and you may inform your client that there is no Federal legal prohibition against its hiring the retarder to activate the stop lamps when it is in use.

However, we wish to point cut an area of potential risk which your client should weigh before proceeding to offer this option and which, if it occurred, could be viewed as an impairment of the stop signal within the prohibition of S4.1.3. Under the Jacobs plan, activation of the stop lamp when the retarder is engaged would indicate only a lessened rate of speed. Because there is no difference in intensity, a following driver would have no indication when the brake was applied to signal a normal or sudden stop, such as might be required when a child or animal runs into the roadway.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 26, 1983

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219, 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

My client, Jacobs Manufacturing Company, manufactures and distributes a complete line of retarding devices which provide auxiliary retarding capabilities independent of a vehicle's foundation brakes and permit a heavy truck to travel at normal traffic speeds on long downgrades, under full control, as well as extending the service life of the foundation brakes.

On August 31, 1978, your office provided me with an interpretation (copy attached as Exhibit A), confirming that the connection of a retarder activation switch to the hazard warning system did not violate the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, nor the anti-tampering provisions set forth in Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended. Because of customer reports that such a retarder activation device, both as a practical and legal matter, should be connected to the rear brake lights, Jacobs now requests a written interpretation that connection of the retarder activation switch to the brake light system when a retarder is installed, either at the original equipment or aftermarket level, will not violate laws and regulations administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. More specifically, Jacobs seeks the agency's confirmation that a hand-operated retarder activation switch, connected to the brake light system to provide the same steady-on warning when activated, is not legally precluded in the view of NHTSA.

As was pointed out in our earlier submission in support of our request for an opinion concerning use of the hazard warning activation means for retardation signalling, in recent years the retarding forces generated by electric retarders have become capable of producing significant deceleration of a large truck so equipped. For this reason, Jacobs believes that there must be an effective means of providing a warning to following vehicles when a retarder is in use. Using the brake lights in their regular mode as the retarder warning light does not appear to violate Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 or the anti-tampering clause of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for the reasons as discussed below.

In addition to the wording in FMVSS 108, a review of the applicable SAE Standard, SAE J586c (currently referenced by FMVSS 108), does not appear to preclude the use of stop lamps as a steady-burning retarder warning signal. Indeed, S 2.1 of the standard, which provides a definition of "stop lamps," strongly suggests that the warning light would be a permissible use. The definition states that "stop lamps" are "lamps giving a steady light to the rear of a vehicle or train of vehicles to indicate the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking." This is precisely the intention and effect of the retarder activation signal.

The brake light warning means has received further support in a series of formal interpretations issued by your office, to the effect that retarder controls can be incorporated with the foundation brake controls and activated with the foundation brakes. Clearly, if one can connect the retarder controls into the foundation brake controls, the application of the retarder will automatically trigger the rear stop lights. See undated letter from Mr. Lawrence Schneider, NHTSA Chief Counsel, responding to letter dated April 2, 1974, from Mr. Alden G. Olson, Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle; letter of July 10, 1974, from Mr. Richard Dyson, NHTSA Assistant Chief Counsel, to Mr. A. Deane, Flyer Industries, Ltd., Winnipeg, Canada; and letter of November 12, 1974, from Mr. Dyson, then Acting Chief Counsel of NHTSA, to Mr. Stanley Frye, The Flxible Company, Loudonville, Ohio. Copies of these letters are attached hereto as Exhibit B.

The only caveat detectable in the pertinent NHTSA interpretations appears to be that use of the retarder in conjunction with the brake system and rear brake lights should not affect the rear stop lights in such a way that they no longer comply with the requirements of FMVSS 108. Use of a hand-operated switch to activate the brake lights when the retarder is in use for purposes of signalling following drivers does not raise this difficulty under applicable law and regulations.

We appreciate your consideration of our request for interpretation, and encourage you to contact the undersigned, should questions remain.

Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Henneberger

cc: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esquire (Prior interpretation letters omitted here.)

ID: 1984-1.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 3, 1984

Mr. Joel S. Premack Research and Development Laboratories U.S. Postal Service Rockville, MD 20852-8101

Dear Mr. Premack:

This responds to your March 7, 1984 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 111, Rearview Mirrors. In particular, you asked whether the covering of the rear and rear-side windows on Postal Service Vehicles would be consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 111.

FMVSS 111 (copy enclosed) establishes requirements regarding rearview mirror systems on new motor vehicles. New Postal Service vehicles would be required to employ one of three optional mirror systems. The first system is a system permitted for use on passenger cars, and includes an inside review mirror with a specified field of view and a plane, driver's side exterior mirror also having a specified field of view. The second permissible system is also a passenger car system and is identical to the first system, except that the inside mirror need not provide the specified field of view and an additional passenger side plane or convex rearview mirror must be provided to compensate for the more restricted field of view of the inside mirror. The third system has two plane mirrors of 19.5 square inches reflective surface area each, one mounted on each side of the vehicle.

Based on the materials you provided with your letter, it appears that Postal Service DJ-5G Models employ the second system described above. In that case, further reduction of the field of view of the inside rearview mirror would not affect compliance with our standard, since an additional passenger side mirror is provided.

If the proposed covering of the rear windows is to be accomplished as a modification to vehicles already delivered to the Postal Service, these modifications may not be subject to FMVSS 111 at all. Modifications to vehicles must be consistent with safety standards only to the extent those modifications are performed by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or private motor vehicle repair business which knowingly renders inoperative safety equipment installed on the vehicle. See 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A). Thus, if the window covering is done by the Postal Service itself, FMVSS requirements are not applicable.

If you have any further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

March 7, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The Engineering Support Center of the U.S. Postal Service has been requested to consider covering over windows identified as items 1, 2, and 3 in the enclosed figure. A set of mirrors would be installed to minimize the impact on rear and side viewing. He are interested in knowing whether such a retrofit is consistent with the existing vehicle certification.

We would appreciate your review of the proposed change in window area as it pertains to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 and related effectiveness of the rear viewing mirrors. Please contact Mr. Joel Premack on 443-3257 with your assessment of this issue.

Joel S. Premack Mechanical Engineer, Program Engineer Mechanical Design/Development Branch Engineering Support Center 11711 Parklawn Drive Rockville, MD 20852-8101

Enclosure

********INSERT GRAPHIC********

AM General Corporation MODEL KJ-5G

ID: 1984-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development Inc. --Takeshi Tanuma, Chief Operating Officer

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104

This responds to your April 4, 19B4 letter regarding the use of two certification labels on motor vehicles, with each label containing a portion of the information specified in 49 CFR Part 567 and the two labels together providing all the specified information.

While the certification regulations specify that "a label" shall be used, the agency has permitted the use of a label in two parts in circumstances which will not lead to confusion and which will satisfy the basic intent of Part 567. In particular, the two portions of the label must be placed in close proximity to each other, to permit individuals to readily find all the specified information and to leave no doubt as to the significance of either portion of the label. Further, the two portions must be oriented in such a manner that the information specified in section 567.4(g) of the certification regulations appears in the required order. As a practical matter, these considerations require that the two portions be affixed to the same vehicle part. While we cannot specify a particular distance as a maximum permissible separation of the two portions of the label, the two portions must be located so as to leave the unmistakable impression that they provide related information.

You also raised the possibility of adding language to one portion of the label to indicate the existence of the other portion and to specify the location of the second portion. While such language is not required, it might be a desirable means of promoting compliance with the considerations discussed above.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC. 3995 Research Park Drive P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 Telephone (313) 665-2044

April 4, 1984 Ref: W-055-S

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan Research & Development, Inc., herewith submits a request for interpretation concerning certain aspects of the certification label requirement as stipulated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 567 -"Certification."

1. If installation of one single label is not practicable due to spacing constraints, can a manufacturer affix two labels instead which, in combination, contain the required information on conformity to federal standards? (Please refer to Diagram 1, attached, for illustration.)

2. If a manufacturer may use two labels, what restrictions would govern the placement of those labels? For example, could one lable be affixed to the door-latch post, and the other to the door edge that meets the door-latch post? Or instead would both labels be required to appear on the same vehicle part? Are there any recommended guidelines for spacing, such as that the labels must appear not less than a specified number of inches apart, if both labels are affixed to the same part? (See Diagram 2.)

3. Contingent on the Agency's approval of the use of two labels, would it be necessary for label #1 to indicate, "Please see label #2 at location ," or something similar?

Thank you for your assistance in helping to evaluate these regulatory guidelines. Any expediency with which you treat this request would be greatly appreciated. If you or your staff require further information, please contact Mr. Shizuo Suzuki in the Washington, D.C. office of Nissan Research & Development, Inc., at (202) 466-5284.

Sincerely,

Takeshi Tanuma Chief Operating Officer

TT:SS:maz Attachment cc: Mr. Roger Fairchild Room 5219, NHTSA

ID: 1984-1.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manning; Fulton; and Skinner -- John B. McMillan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 5/18/77 letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

TEXT: Mr. John B. McMillan Manning, Fulton, and Skinner Raleigh, North Carolina

This is in response to your March 5, 1984 letter regarding the extent to which an automotive remote starting device which one of your clients wishes to market is compatible with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 114, Theft Protection. This device would permit a vehicle to be started from a remote location using a signal transmitter, provided the vehicle's gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed, and all the vehicle doors are closed. Further, should any of these failsafe systems became deactivated (e.g., gear shift lever moved out of the park position), the engine would automatically shut off.

FMVSS 114 reguires that passenger cars as well as trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less must have a key locking system that, when the key is removed, will prevent normal activation of the vehicle's engine and either steering or forward self-mobility. We presume that the steering/transmission lock feature is unaffected by your client's device. Therefore, the question presented by your client's system is whether that device, which permits activation of the engine when the ignition key is removed, permits "normal activation" of the vehicle.

In a previous agency interpretation (copy enclosed), the agency described certain characteristics of a remote starting system similar to your client's which we concluded were outside the concept of "normal activation." These characteristics are automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine when a vehicle door is opened, maintenance of the steering column or gear shift locking feature until the ignition key is inserted in the vehicle, and automatic deactivation of the remotely started engine after 15 minutes (unless the key is inserted in the ignition).

Your client's device apparently has some of these same characteristics as this previously considered device, as well as other automatic engine deactivation features which are comparable in nature. Therefore, we conclude your client's device does not conflict with the requirements of FMVSS 114, since it does not permit normal activation of the engine without the ignition key.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt

Enclosure - See 5/18/77 Letter from Frank Berndt to Video Research Corp.

March 5 1984

Re: Hawban, Inc. - G-11934

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter will confirm my telephone conversation with Roger Fairchild regarding a patented device which my client Hawban, Inc. is attempting to market with major automobile manufacturers. A description of this product is attached for your review. In one of our meetings, John Mapleback of Ford suggested that we contact your office to review the concept with you. Specifically, before going any further, we wanted to be sure that your office would agree that this system is compatible with the existing standards of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and particularly Standard No. 114.

My client's device provides for the remote starting of an automobile and the signaling back as to whether the starting has been accomplished. There are significant safety features built into the device so, for example, the device will not operate unless the gear shift is in the park position, the emergency brake is set, the hood is closed and the doors are all closed. In the event any of these circuits are broken, as for example the hood is open, the engine will cut off. We do not feel that the device conflicts with Standard No. 114 because the use of it would not be "normal activation" of the vehicle. The device is not intended as a substitute for a key because the automobile could not be operated without a key. If the car door were to be opened the engine would shut off. If the gear shift were taken out of the park position, the engine would shut off. In fact, because it would encourage the owner to leave the vehicle in the "park" position and with the emergency brake engaged, we hope you will agree that it is a positive device.

We would appreciate your looking into this matter and confirming our interpretation of the relationship between this device and your standards.

Very truly yours,

MANNING, FULTON & SKINNER

John B. McMillan

JBM/gbj Enclosure omitted.

ID: 1984-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter inquiring about the test specifications of Safety Standards 203 and 204 and the New Car Assessment Program. You specifically asked about the positioning of a tilting steering wheel for each of those tests. The answers to your questions are as follows.

Standard No. 203 incorporates by reference Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J944, December 1965. SAE J944 provides that a steering wheel is to be mounted at the angle specified by the manufacturer's "package drawing." Therefore, a tilting steering wheel would be placed at the nominal design position set by the manufacturer.

Standard No. 204 does not specify the positioning of a tilt wheel. In Standard No. 204 compliance testing, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance positions adjustable steering columns and wheels at the midpoint of the tilt and telescope adjustments. In the case of your particular tilting steering wheel, there is no midpoint. Thus, we would test the vehicle with the steering wheel in the position which is closest to the geometric center of the steering column. Based on the sketch enclosed in your letter, it appears that tilt positions 2 and 3 of your wheel are at an equal distance from the geometric center of the steering column. Therefore, your tilt tilt steering wheel should be capable of complying when tested in either of those positions.

The New Car Assessment Program does not use the Standard No. 208 test procedures, but instead uses its own set of test procedures. Those procedures specify that an adjustable steering wheel is to be positioned at the midpoint of its tilt adjustment. Since there is no midpoint for your wheel, the wheel would be set at the position closest to the gometric center of the steering column. As discussed above, the agency would use either position 2 or 3 for your tilt wheel.

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

SINCERELY,

MMC SERVICES INC.

February 10, 1984

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Subject: Test Conditions of FMVSS 203, 204 and NCAP Dear Sir:

This is to inquire about the test specifications of FMVSS 203, 204 and NCAP (New Car Assessment Program) regarding tilt steering.

1. Our interpretations are as follows:

(1) FMVSS 203 (SAE J944)

The height of the steering wheel shall be adjusted to the manufacturer's design reference point.

(2) FMVSS 204

No description of the adjusting method for the tilt steering.

(3) NCAP

The NCAP's test is conducted according to FMVSS 208; S8.1.4 which states "Adjustable steering controls are adjusted so that the steering wheel hub is at the geometric center of the locus it describes when it is moved through its full range of driving positions.

2. Tilt Steering Mechanism

Our tilt steering for the future model is only adjusted at four (4) positions by the gear, and therefore, the steering wheel hub is not set at the geometric center of the locus as required in FMVSS 208. (See the figure on the following page)

(Graphics omitted)

3. Questions

(1) Are our interpretations as mentioned above correct? If not, please let us know of your interpretations.

(2) When performing the 35 mph frontal collision test, at which gear position do we set the steering wheel hub?

(3) At which gear position shall we set the steering wheel hub for the following respective tests?

(a) FMVSS 203

(b) FMVSS 204

Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President

MMC SERVICES, INC.

ID: 1984-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John Lindig -- President, Lindig Manufacturing Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John Lindig President Lindig Manufacturing Corporation 1875 W County Rd C St. Paul, Minnesota 55113

This is in response to your December 5, 1983 letter regarding the applicability of Federal vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements to brush chipper trailers manufactured by your company.

With very limited exceptions, all trailers are subject to VIN requirements and to certain other requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Trailers which are manufactured exclusively for off-road purposes or those whose on-road use is limited to travel between work sites, with extended stays at individual work sites, are excluded. Trailers whose on-road use is restricted to travel between work sites, but whose stay at any particular site would not typically be an extended one, have been considered subject to our requirements. In particular, the agency has in the past issued interpretation letters stating that brush chipper trailers are subject to our requirements, including VIN requirements. Therefore, it is our view that your trailers are covered by those requirements.

Enclosed is information on how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

December 5, 1983

Dear Sir:

Recently, an equipment dealer that sells our products in California, advised us that his customer had been notified by the State of California, that a federal Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) was required for Lindig products which may be towed behind a car or truck.

A copy of the form letter of the State of California is enclosed. Palomar Tractor Co. is our dealer.

The machine in question is a Lindig Model XR16 brush chipper.

The Lindig XR16, plus similar machines such as our XK9 and XW12 chippers are landscape/construction machines. They are used to process tree branches into small woodchips. They are equipped normally with a gasoline or diesel engine...but are not self propelled. They must be towed from one job site to another, normally by a pickup truck or similar type of vehicle. They are not used to transport other machines or products, but are road towable only so that the machine itself may be moved to a new work location. Similar types of road towable units would be cement mixers, air compressors etc.

The State of California indicates that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 requires the VIN to be assigned, and it appears California feels that our brush chippers are covered by Standard 115.

From our limited understanding of this matter, we believe that products such as ours, are not in fact covered.

We ask for an opinion in this regard.

Sincerely, Original signed by John Lindig, President Lindig Manufacturing Corporation 1875 W County Road C St. Paul, Minnesota 55113