ID: 1984-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Janet E. Odom -- Deputy City Attorney, Lakewood, Colorado

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter concerning legislation that went into effect on January 1, 1984, in Colorado governing the use of certain materials on vehicle windows. You asked us to review the legislation and to inform you as to the effect of Federal statutes or regulations on the Colorado statute.

Section 42-4-224(1)(a) of the Colorado statute enclosed in your letter prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle in which "the windshield or front side windows and side wings immediately forward of or to the left and right of the driver are composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component which presents an opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored appearance in such a way that the operator of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through such window from outside the vehicle." In addition, Section 42-4-224(d) provide that "No material shall be used on any window in the motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance."

Section 42-4-224(c) of the Colorado statute provides that the prohibition against the use of opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored windows shall not be construed "to prevent the use of any window which is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component in a manner approved by federal statute or regulation if such window was included as a component part of a vehicle at the time of the vehicle manufacture, or the replacement of any such window by such covering which meets such guidelines."

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) sets forth the agency's preemption authority. Section 103(d) provides that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Pursuant to section 103(a) of the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles as well as replacement glazing to be installed in used vehicles. One aspect of performance covered by the standard is the light transmittance of windows which are requisite for driving visibility. Those windows must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The agency considers all windows in passenger vehicles requisite for driving visibility. In most other motor vehicles, only the windshield and front side windows are usually considered requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, for instance, under Standard No. 205 the rear windows of a van could be opaque, since the transmittance requirements would not apply to those windows.

Because section 42-4-224(c) of the Colorado statute specifically provides that materials installed on a new vehicle or as replacement equipment in compliance with a Federal regulation are not prohibited, the statute is not in conflict with Standard No. 205 and thus is not preempted. In addition, since the reflectivity of a window is not an aspect of performance governed by Standard No. 205, Colorado's requirements concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted. Once a vehicle is sold, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, those persons may not install materials on a vehicle's window if the installation would mean that the vehicle no longer complies with Standard No. 205. The agency's authority does not extend to the activities of individual vehicle owners. Therefore, the Colorado statute's prohibition against an owner installing opaque and other films is a matter within the State's authority and is not affected by Federal law.

If you need any further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 23, 1983

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Effective January 1, 1984, legislation will go into effect in Colorado that will prohibit the use of any material on any window in a motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance. The windshield or front side windows and side wings to the immediate left and right of the driver cannot also be covered by or composed of any nontransparent or opaque material. To be unlawful, said material must serve to make the driver of the vehicle not easily identifiable or recognizable through such window from outside the vehicle.

Could you please review this legislation, which I have enclosed, and inform me of your opinion concerning whether metallic or mirrored windows are permitted by federal statute or regulation to be used anywhere in the motor vehicle? Since federal regulations, as stated in ANS Z26, mandate that windows that are needed for the driver's visability allow light transmittance of not less than 70 percent of the available light, would metallic or mirrored windows conform to these regulations?

I would appreciate any assistance you could provide in interpreting the federal requirements.

Sincerely, Janet E. Odom -- Deputy City Attorney, City of Lakewood

Encls.

SECTION 2. 42-4-224, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended, is REPEALED AND REENACTED, WITH AMENDMENTS, to read:

42-4-224. Windows unobstructed - certain materials prohibited - windshield wiper requirements. (1) (a) No person shall operate any motor vehicle on which the windshield or front side windows and side wings immediately forward of or to the left and right of the driver are composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component which presents an opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored appearance in such a way that the operator of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through such window from outside the vehicle.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), nontransparent material may be applied, installed, or affixed to the topmost portion of the windshield subject to the following:

(I) The bottom edge of the material extends no more than four inches measured from the top of the windshield down:

(II) The material is not red or amber in color, nor does it affect perception of primary colors or otherwise distort vision or contain lettering that distorts or obstructs vision;

(III) The material does not reflect sunlight or headlight glare into the eyes of occupants of oncoming or preceding vehicles to any greater extent than the windshield without the material.

(c) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to prevent the use of any window which is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component in a manner approved by federal statute or regulation if such window was included as a component part of a vehicle at the time of the vehicle manufacture, or the replacement of any such window by such covering which meets such guidelines.

(d) No material shall be used on any window in the motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance.

(e) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to deny or prevent the use of certificates or other papers which do not obstruct the view of the driver and which may be required by law to be displayed.

(2) The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.

(3) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.

(4) This section shall apply to all motor vehicles.

SECTION 3. Effective date. This act shall take effect January 1, 1984.

SECTION 4. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

Ted L. Strickland PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

Carl B. Bledsoe SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Marjorie L. Nielson SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

Lorraine F. Lombardi CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APPROVED June 1, 1983 8:13 pm

Richard D. Lamm GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

ID: 1984-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transport Canada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. G.N. Farr, P. Eng. Transport Canada Standards and Regulations Division, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 CANADA

Dear Mr. Farr:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR S571.222). First, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. You specifically asked for an interpretation of section S5.1.3.4 of Standard No. 222, which section requires the seat back to absorb 4,000W inch-pounds of energy. This energy is applied to the seat by a loading bar moving forward. When calculating the energy absorbed by the seat, the force transmitted back through the loading bar after the forward pressure is released is subtracted from the energy which was transmitted through the loading bar when it was moving forward. You asked at what point the forward movement of the loading bar is stopped in order to permit the seat back to rebound with a resultant energy absorption by the seat back of 4,000W inch-pounds. You noted that the rebound characteristics of the seat being tested would have to be known in advance to calculate the point at which the forward movement of the loading bar should be stopped.

This point was explained in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking which preceded the adoption of Standard No. 222 (40 FR 17855; April 23, 1975) (copy enclosed). An earlier proposal had specified a requirement that, "The energy necessary to deflect the seat back 14 inches shall be not less than 4,000W inch-pounds". This agency decided that this language created needless confusion, by inaccurately combining two different requirements. Accordingly, the requirements were set forth in two separate sections. Section S5.1.3(b) now specifies that seat back deflection shall not exceed 14 inches. This requirement is related to the requirement in section S5.1.3.4 that the seat back absorb 4,000W inch-pounds.

When conducting the compliance testing for section S5.1.3.4, the agency deflects the seat back as far as it will go, and then releases the seat back. If the seat back absorbs 4,000W inch-pounds of energy or more when tested according to the procedures set forth in S5.1.3.4, it is deemed to pass the test. If the seat back does not absorb 4,000W inch-pounds during the test, the seat back has failed the test. I think your question arose from your impression that the testing must be continued until the seat back has absorbed exactly 4,000W inch-pounds of energy. This agency tests only to see if the seat back absorbs 4,000W inch-pounds or more.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5, January 9, 1984.

Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, U.S.A.

Dear Sir:

On November 22, 1983 we wrote to request a copy of any legal interpretations which have been made to clause S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222. A copy of the letter is attached.

We would appreciate it if you could review this item and respond at your earliest convenience.

Yours very truly,

G.N. Farr, P. Eng., Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation.

Attach.

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5, November 22, 1983.

Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, U.S.A.

Dear Sir:

This is a request to be provided with a copy of any legal interpretation which has been made to clause S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222. The interpretation would involve the method used to determine the amount of energy absorbed in deflecting the seat back (or retaining barrier). S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222 requires that an additional force be applied until 4000W inch-pounds of energy has been absorbed by the seat back. The force-deflection curve used to calculate the energy consists of both the forward and rearward travel of the loading bar pivot point. The question regarding clarification is, at what point do you stop the forward movement of the loading bar, in order to permit the seat back to rebound, with a resultant energy absorption of 4000 W inch-pounds? The rebound characteristics of the seat back would have to be known in advance in order to determine this point.

If a legal interpretation of this point has been made in the past, we would appreciate receiving a copy of same.

Yours very truly,

G.N. Farr P. Eng., Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulations

ID: 1984-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Instruction; State of Iowa

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dwight R. Carlson, Director School Transportation & Safety Education Division Department of Public Instruction State of Iowa Grimes State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319

Dear Mr. Carlson:

This responds to your May 7, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the remanufacture of school buses. You asked several questions regarding the replacement of new and used school bus bodies on new and used chassis, and the certification requirements for school buses remanufactured in this way.

Your first question concerned an automobile salvage yard that is remanufacturing school buses to sell to schools. If the body of the vehicle is damaged beyond repair, the salvage yard removes it and mounts a different used school bus body on the old chassis. You asked whether this procedure is appropriate. The answer to your question is that there is no prohibiton against remanufacturing school buses in this way.

This agency does not consider the mounting of a used vehic1e body on an old chassis to be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Such a remanufactured vehicle need comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis.

You described a specific situation where a used school bus body was mounted on a 1980 model year chassis. In this situation the school bus should comply with the school bus safety standards, even though the vehicle is not considered newly manufactured. This is because the earliest date of manufacture that could be assigned to the remanufactured school bus is the date of manufacture of the chassis. Since the chassis was manufactured after Apri1 1, 1977, the bus would be required to comply with all the Federal school bus safety standards that became effective on April 1, 1977.

You asked whether this remanufactured school bus would have to be recertified.

A remanufactured school bus which uses a used chassis does not have to be recertified. The remanufactured school bus is considered to be the same vehicle as originally manufactured, and the original certification label should have been transferred to the new body at the time of the modification.

In your letter you asked two additional questions dealing with the remanufacture of school buses. The first question asked: "May a new school bus body be mounted on a used chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?"

As discussed earlier, the answer to this question is that manufacturers are not prohibited from mounting a new school bus body used chassis. Vehicles remanufactured in this way are not considered to be new vehicles. This school bus would only have to comply with the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis. On the other hand, if the chassis was manufactured after April 1, 1977, the new school bus body would have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards since the date of manufacture of the school bus would be after the effective date of the safety standards.

The agency does not have any regulation placing limits on who can remanufacture a school bus. A school bus remanufactured by placing a new bus body on a used chassis is not required to be recertified since our regulations prescribe certification requirements for new motor vehicles only. If the remanufacturing of the bus is done by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair shop, then section 108( a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that those persons may not knowingly render inoperative any component or element of design installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to a vehicle owner, such as a school or a State. Thus, one of your schools could mount the bus body on the used chassis and would not have to assure that the remanufactured school bus complies with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, as I am sure you are aware, the school could incur substantial liability in the event of an accident involving a noncomplying school bus. Also, the school may find it difficult to obtain insurance for such a vehicle. This matter should be discussed between the school and its insurance company and attorney.

Your final question asked: "May a used school bus body be mounted on a new chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?"

The answer to your question is yes, a used school bus body may be mounted on a new chassis. In this situation the agency considers the mounting of an old school bus body on a new chassis to result in the manufacture of a new school bus. Since the earliest date of manufacture which could be assigned to the vehicle is the date of manufacture of the chassis (which we assume is after April 1, 1977) the school bus is subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. The remanufacture of the school bus can be performed by anyone. The manufacturer, however, must certify the school bus as conforming to the safety standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 7, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of The Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is intended to formalize a telephone conversation we had with Ms. Deirdre Hom of your staff.

We have been notified that an automobile salvage yard in our state is purchasing used and in some cases damaged school buses. If the body is damaged beyond repair, they are removing the damaged body and mounting a different used school bus body on the used chassis. The reverse may be true where they are replacing the chassis with another used chassis. Recently, we inspected a school bus owned by a nonpublic school that had purchased the vehicle from the salvage yard. The chassis was a 1980 Chevrolet, but the Vehicle Identification Plate had been removed from the body, thus it was not possible to determine the date of manufacture or other information on the body. Our question is this, is the procedure described above appropriate in view of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school buses? Further, if the procedure is appropriate, should there be a certification or recertification by the person(s) performing the procedure, and if there must be a certification process, who may perform this function?

In view of the current undesirable economic situation many of our schools find themselves, we present two additional questions unrelated to the situation described above.

1. May a new school bus body be mounted on a used chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?

2. May a used school bus body be mounted on a new chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?

We appreciate your efforts in responding to our concerns. If you need additional information, please contact me at 515/281-5811 or at the above address.

Sincerely,

Dwight R. Carlson, Director School Transportation & Safety Education Division DRC/mjr

ID: 1984-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Deane; Snowdon; Shutler & Gherardi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John Russell Deane III Deane, Snowdon, Shutler & Gherardi 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Deane:

This responds to your letter of May 15, 1984, to Stephen Oesch of my staff, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. The following discussion addresses the agency's interpretation of the standard that you discussed with Mr. Oesch and the question concerning the luminous transmittance requirements in passenger cars that you raised in your letter.

You are correct that the standard regulates the glazing installed in motor vehicles and that the agency has stated that window coverings, such as solar tinting film, are not glazing for the purposes of the standard. You are also correct that the anti-tampering requirement of section 108(a)(2)(A) preclude the installation of window coverings by certain individuals, if the installation would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with Standard No. 205. Finally, you are correct that the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205 do not apply to windows behind the driver in buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) and trucks when those windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

The issue of whether Standard No. 205 would preempt a State standard on window covering must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As a general matter, Standard No. 205 would not preempt State laws on window covering unless those laws appear to authorize the installation of window coverings on a new vehicle prior to its first sale and the installation of the window covering would mean that the vehicle's glazing no longer complies with Standard. No. 205. As to the abrasion resistance requirements of Standard No. 205, while you are correct that they do not directly apply to window coverings, the installation of a window covering on a vehicle may render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard.

Finally, you requested information concerning the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. Subsequent to your meeting, Mr. Oesch provided you with the agency's interpretation letter of February 15, 1974, concerning windows in a passenger car which are requisite for driving visibility. The reason that the agency distinguishes between the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars and those for buses, MPV's and trucks is due to the differing rearward visibility requirements set in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors for those different types of vehicles. Standard No. 111 requires all passenger cars to have an inside rearview mirror, so it is necessary to ensure that the rear window of a passenger car has sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to use the rearview mirror. Unlike MPV's, buses and trucks, passenger cars are not required to have an outside rearview mirror on the passenger's side. Therefore, the agency believes that the side windows to the rear of the driver of a passenger car must have sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to have an adequate view through those windows to the rear of the car.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Stephen L. Oesch Chief Counsel General Law Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on Thursday, May 10, 1984 to discuss certain interpretations of FMVSS 205. As I mentioned during our meeting, I represent the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) which numbers among its members most of the manufacturers of various decorative window coverings. We have for some time attempted to develop objectively stated standards for use by the states in their regulation of these products. One of our manufacturer's major problems is the lack of uniformity in the state standards. We were successful in having the VESC adopt a model standard and have attempted to have that standard enacted by law or regulation in as many states as possible.

We are concerned that certain problems regarding state standards may have been exacerbated by certain correspondence between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and various state authorities. Specifically, this correspondence includes the letters from Hugh Oates to Paul J. Phillipson, dated February 17, 1983 and from Frank Berndt to B. E. Diehl, dated December 20, 1983.

While the message conveyed by those letters may have been misinterpreted, I believe that SEMA and your office agree on the current interpretation of FMVSS 205, except in one regard. First, FMVSS 205 covers within its scope window glazing which is installed in various vehicles and does not regulate the use of various window coverings. It is clear, however, that the antitampering provisions of the law would preclude the use of various materials by certain individuals, if the use of such materials would render inoperative the safety standard in question. Second, in its present form, FMVSS 205 is not preemptive of state laws which seek to deal with window covering products since the federal standard does not deal with such products. Third, FMVSS 205 does not impose the abrasion test on window covering materials. This is the case inasmuch as the standard does not apply to such window covering materials, and even if it did, the abrasion test is inapplicable to window glazing utilized in locations where there is no requirement for luminous transmittance. Our final point of agreement is that FMVSS 205 does not require luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver in multipurpose passenger vehicles vans and trucks where such windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

It would appear that the only area where we do not yet agree is with regard to the requirement for luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver of a passenger car. I believe that, as is the case with MPV, there is no requirement for luminous transmittance unless the window is requisite for driving visibility.

During our meeting I had requested that you provide me with copies of various documents where the policy of NHTSA had been expressed on the issue of luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. I had also requested any materials that you might have which discuss the rationale for a distinction between passenger cars and MPVs. Further, if it is possible to delineate any concerns which might warrant a distinction between MPV and passenger cars, it would be very helpful to us in finding ways of dealing with such concerns.

After we have had an opportunity to review the materials which you are providing us, I would very much appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the issue with you further. In the meantime, if there are any materials which we have which might be of use to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you again for meeting with me and for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN RUSSELL DEANE III cc: Calvin Hill Roger Greene Chuck Blum Bob Burch

ID: 1984-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Terry E. Teeter -- Transmission Division, Eaton Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry E. Teeter, P.E. Engineering Supervisor Transmission Division Eaton Corporation P.O. Box 4013 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49003

This responds to your May 14, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the transmissions that you manufacture for air brake equipped trucks. You stated that your transmissions use vehicle air pressure to accomplish gear changing and other transmission control functions. You stated your understanding that the transmission air system is an accessory similar to air powered wipers or air horns and therefore air lines connected to the system are exempt from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. As explained below, not all accessory lines are excluded from the standard, and the issue of whether your transmission lines are covered by the standard depends on whether a failure of the line would result in a loss of pressure in the brake system.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, defines brake hose as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

As you pointed out in your letter, the agency has previously determined that hoses connected to accessories such as air powered wipers or air horns need not comply with Standard No. 106. However, these hoses are only excepted from the standard if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To determine whether the hoses of your transmission air system are excluded from Standard No. 106, you must determine whether a failure of such a hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses transmit or contain the pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes and therefore would have to comply with the standard. If you use a check valve or some other device to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 14, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Frank Berndt

Gentlemen:

We manufacture heavy duty truck transmissions that are used in Class 7 and Class 8 highway trucks. These trucks typically use air braking systems that utilize air brake hoses subject to FMVSS-106. Various models of our transmissions use vehicle air pressure to accomplish gear changing and other transmission control functions (see attached typical transmission drawing). This basic system has been in use for over thirty years.

It is our understanding that the transmission air system is an accessory such as the air powered wipers or the air horn (previously clarified in "Preamble to Amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74", Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10, Part 571; S106-74-Pre 6: copy attached), and therefore exempt from FMVSS-106. Please confirm that our understanding is correct.

If you wish to discuss this in more detail, or if you desire more information, please feel free to contact me at (616) 342-3400.

Sincerely,

Terry E. Teeter, P.E. Engineering Supervisor Preamble omitted.

ID: 1984-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: T.F. Palomba -- National Sales Manager, Empco Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to me seeking information on the applicability of certain Federal requirements to "non-highway tires." Specifically, you asked if the manufacturer of such tires is required to identify itself on the sidewall of those tires by molding a DOT identification number thereon, and whether such tires are subject to the Federal excise tax on tires. The DOT identification number must appear on all tires for use on motor vehicles, as explained below. The Department of Transportation has nothing to do with the collection of the Federal excise tax on tires. If you need further information on that subject, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service.

49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by all manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirements in section 574.5 that a DOI identification number be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if the manufacturer must put a DOT identification number on a tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.

"Motor vehicle" is defined at 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." If the tires you might import are for use on forklifts, earthmovers, or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the manufacturer is not required to mold a DOT identification number on the tires, since the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these sorts of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.

If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the tires are to be mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used off-highway, the manufacturer would be required to mold a DOT identification number onto the tires. The determination of whether the tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the manufacturer, but that determination is subject to review by this agency.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

SINCERELY,

May 15, 1984 OCC 598

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Attn: Frank A. Berndt

This letter is being written to you pursuant to my recent phone conversation with Mr. T.L. Moore of your office.

We at Empco Industries, through Nissho Iwai American Corporation in Los Angeles, are negotiating with Rekord Rubber products factory, Beograd, Yugoslavia, to import their line of tractor, farm, industrial and earthworks tires. (See attached brochure) on file in Chief Counsel's office.

Rekord is now exported to 30 countries and plans to expand into the United States market. In addition to no F.E.T. it is our understanding that a D.O.T. number is also not applicable to non-highway tires.

Would you please confirm this in writing, to my attention, that we are correct in our interpretation of these important factors pertaining to F.E.T. and D.O.T. requirements. In the event we consummate this agreement with Rekord Rubber Factory it would be necessary to have this information as a permanent record in our file.

EMPCO INDUSTRIES

T.F. Palomba Nitto National Sales Mgr.

CC: K. HIRATA; NISSHO IWAI

ID: 1984-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David W. Allen; NHTSA

TO: Morton; Lewis; King & Krieg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Charles B. Lewis Esq. Morton, Lewis King & Krieg P.O. Box 2425 Knoxville, TN 37901

Dear Mr. Lewis:

This is in reply to your letter of June 22, 1984, asking for an interpretation of 49 C.F.R. 571.108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Paragraph S4.6 in pertinent part requires that headlamps when activated shall be steady-burning. You present the situation of a Honda motorcycle which has a headlamp that is illuminated when the engine is running "or while the motorcycle is otherwise moving while in gear." Allegedly, the engine stopped running for awhile and during the period of time the clutch was disengaged, there was no headlight and a collision ensued. Your consultant states that "the engine has to be turning for the headlight to burn and such a system does not comply with the 'steady-burning' requirement of the regulation, since the light would not burn without the engine turning."

The Federal requirement, is that when a headlamp is on, it shall provide a steady beam. The Honda lamp meets this requirement. There is no Federal requirement that the headlamp be on when the engine is running or that it remain on when the engine is not running. The agency's Enforcement office informs us that many motorcycles are wired so that the headlamp remains illuminated when the engine is off, but that the Honda design is not unique.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 22, 1984

Mr. Frank Burndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Re: Honda Motor Company, Ltd. (Hopper) Model XL125S; CFR Title 49

Dear Mr. Burndt:

We have a seemingly unique and serious problem regarding the interpretation of Title 49, S571.108 relating to the definition of a "steady-burning headlamp." The involved unit is a Honda, 1980, XL125S which has a headlight powered by a coil in the AC generator and which illuminates when the engine is running or when the motorcycle is otherwise moving while in gear. Briefly, the engine allegedly stopped running for a short period of time and during the period of time the clutch was disengaged by the rider there was no headlight and a collision ensued.

A professor from Vanderbilt University has checked the regulations referred to hereinbefore and says that when the engine stops turning the headlight stops burning and that this makes this particular unit and those units of all other manufacturers defective and not in compliance with the federal regulations mentioned hereinabove. The professor says the flaw in design is that the engine has to be turning for the headlight to burn and such a system does not comply with the "steady-burning" requirement of the regulation, since the light would not burn without the engine turning. The witness says the light is "steady burning" when the engine is turning and is in compliance with the regulation during such operation. The witness doing this testing says that many other things are defined, such as "flash" but that "steady-burning" is not defined and that it can only mean the above interpretation.

We have talked to your office on several occasions, the last time being with Mr. Taylor Vinson, and were advised that if we would briefly state the facts you could give us an advisory opinion and perhaps other enlightening comments which would assist us. This is very important to all manufacturers of units of this type, in addition to being directly involved in a lawsuit against Honda at this time. It is the desire of all manufacturers, and in particular my client, Honda, to comply with all regulations; and they believe they are in compliance here, but respectfully request the opinion of your office.

Thank you for your assistance and the assistance of the Department in this matter.

Yours truly,

MORTON, LEWIS, KING & KRIEG

Charles B. Lewis

CBL/bs

ID: 1984-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Eugenio Alzati -- General Director, Ferrari S.p.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Eng. Eugenic Alzati General Director Ferrari S.p.A. 41100 Moodena Viale Trento Triesta, 31 ITALY

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steed, the Administrator of this agency, asking that Ferrari be allowed to petition for a low volume exemption from the generally applicable passenger automobile fuel economy standards. Ferrari had filed a petition asking such a request for its 1978 model year vehicles, but was ruled ineligible for a low volume exemption because Ferrari was controlled by Fiat, S.p.A. Now that Fiat has stopped importing vehicles into the US, you stated your belief that Ferrari is in the same position as Naserati, which has been ruled eligible to apply for low volume exemption. I need some further information to determine if Ferrari should be considered eligible to film a petition for a low volume exemption.

By way of background, section 502(c) of the Motor Vehicle information and Cost Savings Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. (2002)(c) provides:

On application of a manufacturer who manufactured (whether or not in the US) fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year proceding the model year for which the application is made, the Secretary may, by rule exempt such manufacturer from (the generally applicable fuel economy standards).

To determine whether Ferrari manufactures fewer that 10,000 passenger automobiles, it is necessary to interpret and apply sections 501(9) and 503(c) of the Act. Section 501(9) specifies: the term "manufacturer" (sic) (except for purposes of section 502(c)) means to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the US, or to import." Section 503(c) reads as follows:

(c) Any reference in this part to automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer shall be deemed-- (1) to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer; and (2) to exclude all automobiles manufactured (within the meaning of paragraph (1) during a model year by such manufacturer which are exported prior to the expiration of 30 days following the end of such school year.

As you noted in your letter, this agency has determined that Naserati is eligible to file a petition for a low volume exemption under section 502(c) of the Act, even though that company is under common control with Nuova Innocenti, S.p.A., which manufactures more than 10,000 passenger automobiles annually. This petition was allowed because NHTSA believes that the term "manufacture" in section 503(c) means to produce or assemble in the US, or to import into the US. Since none of the Nuova Innocenti automobiles are imported into the US, NHTSA concluded that only Naserati's worldwide production should be counted to determine whether that company was eligible for a low volume exemption.

Your situation is potentially similar to the Maserati situation, if the current importers of what formerly were the Fiat X1/9 and Spider 2000 were not found to be under the control of Fiat S.p.A. To make this determination, I will need answers to the following questions:

1. State whether Fiat S.p.A. owns any stock in either industrie Pininfarina S.p.A. or Carrozeria Bertone. If so, please state the extent of such holdings (both in number of shares and the percentage of total shares outstanding).

2. State whether the models which are sold in the US by Pininfarina and Bartone are sold in any other countries. If so, please state whether those models are marketed as Fiats, or whether they are marketed as Pininfarinas and Bartones.

3. State whether the components used by Pininfarina and Bartone when assembling these automobiles are manufactured by those companies or by another company. If any of the components are manufactured by Fiat S.p.A. or any of its subsidiaries, please identify and list each of these components.

4. Your letter had a Feb. 14 l983 letter from Fiat of North America to the Environmental Protection Agency attached thereto. On page 2 of that letter, the following sentence appears: "We would also like to advise you that we will officially be helping Industrie Pininfarine S.p.A. and Carrozeria Bertone in dealing with certification matters in accordance with instructions received from them and Fiat Auto S.p.A." Please detail any and all assistance Fiat of North America currently provides to Pininfarine and Bertone, what assistance was formerly provided, and when the official assistance was ended, if it has been ended.

5. Indicate whether Fiat currently provides any engineering, design, or servicing advice or assistance to Pininfarine and Bertone in connection with the 21/9 or Spider 2000 models. If so, indicate the motors and frequency of such assistance.

The agency will make a prompt determination of Ferrari's eligibility to file for an exemption under section 502(c) of the Act when we receive your answers to these questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Intec -- Christopher Moore

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Christopher Moore Intec 23132 La Cadena Languna Hills, California 92653

This responds to your April 24, 1984 letter regarding the installation of a closed circuit television viewing system in new vehicles, as an alternative to rearview mirror systems. The television system provides a view of the area behind the vehicle from a monitor screen placed on or near the dash.

As you note in your letter, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 specifies the use of rearview mirrors to provide improved rearward and side visibility in new motor vehicles. No provision is made for alternative means of compliance such as closed circuit television systems, so such alternative systems are not authorized. However, the closed circuit system could be used as a supplement to a mirror system which meets the requirements of Standard 111.

The only options available to a vehicle manufacturer seeking to use a closed circuit system as a replacement for the required mirror system would be to file a petition to amend the standard or a petition for an exemption from the standard. Requirements applicable to these petitions are set forth in Title 49 of the Code af Federal Regulations, Parts 552 and 555, respectively. These petitions are only granted in the limited circumstances set forth in those regulations.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 24, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of the Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street. S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590 Attention: Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are the manufacturers of the INTEC "Car Vision" System, a closed circuit television system for vehicular applications. The system is used extensively in the recreational vehicle industry, on refuse and construction equipment and various other commerical vehicles.

Recently, we have had an inquiry from a foreign auto manufacturer via Chrysler Corporation asking about the system for automobiles. The company wishes to replace the existing mirrors with CCTV rearview system but was not familiar with the applicable laws.

After discussing the situation with Mr. Michael Finkelstein, the Associate Administrator for Research and Development and his associate Mr. Robert Henderson, they suggested we talk to your office. Our question is to what extent can a CCTV system replace or enhance the rearview mirrors on an Automobile? We know the current NHTSA Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for rearview mirrors, but no mention of alternatives is provided. Would a CCTV system be a possible replacement?

Enclosed is our sales brochure which outlines the system's technical specifications. We are recommending to Chrysler that a chip camera be substituted for the standard tube model. Chip cameras are not subject to tube burn and are durable enough for vehicular applications.

After you have had a chance to review our literature. I look forward to discussing further the system and any comments and suggestions regarding the law.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,

INTEC

Christopher Moore Enclosures Sales CM/gw Attachment --

INTEC CAR VISION

"A must to ensure safety on any large vehicle"

(Insert Diagram)

INTEC'S Car Vision can prevent accidents and ensure safety.

INTEC'S Car Vision can prevent traffic accidents by providing the driver in a large vehicle to see backward clearly when changing lanes, backing-up or when towing any other vehicle. With the aid of Intec's Car Vision, the diver can confirm that the tow hitch is in place and that the vehicle he is towing is alright. The field of view of the Car Vision is from directly downward to the rear bumper to outwards 7 times the height of the installed camera. See diagram with field of view height and width.

Attractive and Compact Monitor with distance grid on screen.

The TV Monitor installed in the divers section is attractive and compact in design. The Monitor can be surface mounted or recessed into the instrument panel. The Monitor has 2 modes brightness switch, one for bright sunshine and the other for night usage.

Shock-proof, vibration-proof and weather-proof construction.

The camera and monitor of INTEC'S Car Vision can withstand locks of 4.4 G's. The Camera does not resonate with any kind of vibration emitted by the vehicle. The Camera is completely weatherproof and can be used on tractors, road rollers and just about any self-propelled outdoor equipment with divers cabs or canopies to cover the monitor.

It serves as another eye for the driver.

On many occasions the diver must watch the situation in the rear, including the objects in a blind spot even when driving forward. For example, a tractor diver must watch what is ahead of him and also his tillage performance in the rear. The INTEC'S Car Vision permits him to see directly behind the vehicle and a lane to each side.

Ultra wide-angle lens yield remarkable wide view.

The ultra wide-angle lens of the Car Vision camera has a local length of only 6.5mm. Its field extends from directly below the lens downward to about 15m away from it horizontally. Because of this unique feature, the Car Vision can be used not only on vehicles but also on sea going vessels and aircrafts. Waterproofing permits all weather outdoor use of TV Camera.

The TV Camera has an airtight, waterproof, all-weather type case. It is extremely suitable as an outdoor-operated camera.

*Insert diagrams here

ID: 1984-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 7, 1984

FROM: WILLIAM R. WILLEN -- MANAGING ATTORNEY, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/13/84 FROM WILLIAM R. WILLEN, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., TO FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA; [A26; REDBOOK 3; PART 556]

TEXT: Pursuant to your letter of July 3, 1984 and Part 573.5, we are submitting a Defect and Noncompliance Information Report regarding FMVSS No. 218 as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

1. Name of Manufacturer of Hondaline Helmets:

Bell Helmets, Inc.

Shoei Safety Helmet Corp.

Name of Manufacturer of Hondaline Headsets:

Clarion Corporation of America

Panasonic Industrial Company

Division of Matsushita

Electric Company of America

2. Identification of Helmets Containing the Noncompliance: Mfg. Model Hondaline Helmet Name Model Year Bell Star International Road Race, Hawk 1982 Bell Tourstar Tour Sport, Hawk 1982 Shoei S-12 & S-22 Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Custom, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1981 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1981 " Custom, Stag & Hawk 1981

Mfg. Model Hondaline Helmet Name Model Year Shoei S-22 & ER-5 Aspencade, Stag & Hawk 1983 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1983 " Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1983 Bell Star International Road Race, Hawk 1983 Bell Tourstar Tour Sport, Hawk 1983 Shoei S-22 & ER-5 Aspencade, Stag & Hawk 1984 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1984 " Tour Sport, Stag & Hawk 1984 Shoei ER-5 Modified Super Sport, Hawk 1984

3. Total Number of Helmets Containing the Noncompliance:

All Hondaline helmets which have the headsets installed. However, our records indicate approximately 20,000 headsets have been distributed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

4. The Percentage of Helmets Estimated to Contain the Noncompliance:

100% of those helmets which have the headsets installed but not more than 20,000.

5. A Description of the Defect or Noncompliance, Including both a Brief Summary and a Detailed Description, with Graphic Aids as Necessary, of the Nature and Physical Location (if applicable) of the Defect or Noncompliance:

Audio speakers fitted to the interior of motorcycle helmets distributed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc. do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 218. Section 5.5 of FMVSS 218 states, in pertinent part: "A helmet shall not have any rigid projections inside its shell."

6. In the Case of a Defect, A Chronology of all Principle Events that were the Basis for the Determination that the Defect Related to Motor Vehicle Safety, Including a Summary of all Warranty Claims, Field or Service Reports, and Other Information, with their Dates of Recepit:

Not Applicable.

7. In the Case of a Noncompliance, the Test Results or other Data on the Basis of which the Manufacturer Determined the Existance of the Noncompliance: Late April, 1984 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc., was notified by Shoei of a possible noncompliance as a result of their recent awareness of the size and shape of the eternally mounted headsets.

May 1, 1984 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc. stopped all sales of the headset units and initiated an investigation.

May 17, 1984 - Meeting between American Honda and NHTSA personnel at the Office of Compliance.

June 14, 1984 - Petition to NHTSA for Exemption for InConsequential Noncompliance.

8. A Description of the Manufacturer's Program for Remedying the Noncompliance:

A Petition for Examination for Inconsequential Noncompliance was filed with your office on June 14, 1984.

9. Notices, Bulletins and Other Communication that relate to the Noncompliance: Not Applicable.