ID: nht73-3.41

DATE: 03/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mrs. Gussie Peer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your recent letter to the National Transportation Safety Board concerning bus window glass has been referred to me for reply.

Safety glazing in buses is regulated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. In general, the windows in the vicinity of passengers may be either laminated safety glass or tempered safety glass, or rigid plastics, if the windows are readily removable. Hence, the Federal standard does not prohibit manufacturers from using glazing materials that perform as you suggest.

In the past few years, manufacturers have expressed interest in providing passengers with protection from missiles thrown at buses. I expect to see an increase in the use of materials that conform with your suggestion.

I am enclosing a summary of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for your information.

ID: nht73-5.18

DATE: 03/29/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. W. Lillie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 30, 1973 and our sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.

There are no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to plastic fuel tanks. Standard No. 301, which includes the fuel tank in the(Illegible Word) performance requirements of the vehicle, makes no reference to the construction or design details of the fuel tank. A booklet briefly describing the issued standards is enclosed.

The Department of Transportation does not routinely receive and test fuel tanks of the various manufacturers; however, the Department keeps abreast of technical advancements of these companies through technical society meetings and trade journals. It has been brought to our attention that Dow Chemical Company has done considerable work with high density polyethylene fuel tanks and offers an internal treatment of these tanks which is claimed to reduce considerably the permeation of gasoline through the walls. Further information may be obtained from the following source:

Dow Chemical U.S.A. Plastics Department Midland, Michigan 48640

Standard No. 116 is applicable to Hydraulic Brake Fluids and is included in the consolidated edition of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, as per the enclosed order form.

2

The physical characteristics and labeling requirements of brake fluids, including silicones, are included in this standard, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Your inquiry concerning the use of silicones in automobiles can best be answered by the Original Equipment Manufacturers or the automotive companies. The interest of the Department in materials is primarily performance rather than design considerations, for example, an(Illegible Word) material could be silicone, neoprene or ether(Illegible Word) as long as the standards are complied with.

The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has issued standards that are applicable to commerical vehicles engaged in interstate commerce, and some of these standards apply to fuel tanks. A portion of these regulations that pertains to fuel tanks is also enclosed for your information, along with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making that concerns plastic fuel tanks (F. R, Vol. 36, No. 178, September 14, 1971). Additional information is available from the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S. W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

5 ENCLS.

R. W. LILLIE & COMPANY

January 30, 1973

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Your reply doesn't answer our questions. How do we get those which are not in NHTSA standards?

Very truly yours,

R. W. Lillie

(Illegible Word)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

In reply refer to N48-51

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The standards are not available from the NHTSA, but may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents on a subscription basis. An order form is enclosed for your convenience.

R. W. LILLIE & COMPANY

December 8, 1972

United States Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We are aware that certain efforts have been underway aimed at the use of plastic fuel tanks for autos. We would like to know the status of these developments, and since we are sure DOT is involved in testing and/or approval procedures, we would appreciate any reports you can send us on this subject: Such matters as the following would be of interest, as well as any othermatters influencing the ultimate use of these tanks:

1. Tests that must be met to receive DOT approval

2. Results of tests on any tanks already submitted

3. Indications of which polymers may be suitable

4. Other interesting information.

We would also like to receive a copy of the NHTSA Regulation concerning the use of brake fluids for automobiles. We are also looking for any other information you may have on the use of silicones in automobiles.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Lillie

ID: nht68-3.11

DATE: 01/26/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Roger H. Compton; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of December 6, 1967, you requested our comments on the applicability of SAE Standard J567, as sub-referenced in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As mentioned in your letter, the intent of the reference to SAE J567 is to ensure that replacement bulbs are compatible with the standard bulb sockets. Therefore, any sealed, disposable type, bulb-lens unit, in which the bulb is not a replaceable component, need not comply with the requirements of SAE Standard J567. This provision in no way exempts these sealed units from the other requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

ID: nht76-5.34

DATE: 09/24/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Allan J. Kam; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum to interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: SUBJECT: UNIFORM TIRE QUALITY GRADING: TELEPHONE CALL FROM CHARLES McCARTY OF B.F. GOODRICH ON 9/22/76

On September 22, 1976, I received a telephone call from Charles McCarty of B.F. Goodrich. He asked about data which he said was referred to in the court's recent decision. When I asked specifically where in the court's decision, he referred to page 21, paragraph 2, which concerns the remand on course monitoring tires. I told Mr. McCarty that nothing has been published in that regard in the Federal Register since the court's decision, and that I would prefer not to offer any predictions because the matter was still in litigation.

I told him that, as he may know, the tire companies had filed a petition for rehearing on Septermber 16, and thus they had chosen to keep the matter in litigation. Therefore, I said, it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the matter with him directly rather than with the attorneys for his company in the litigation. He said that he understood.

ID: nht95-7.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 17, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry W. Strawhorn -- Vice President of Engineering, American Trucking Associations

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/6/95 LETTER FROM Earl Eisnhart and Larry W. Strawhorn to John G. Womack

TEXT: Dear Mr. Strawhorn:

This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of the antilock power circuit requirements set forth at S5.1.6.3 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.] This provision states that

S5.1.6.3 Antilock Power Circuit for Towed Vehicles. Each truck tractor manufactured on or after March 1, 1997 and each single unit vehicle manufactured on or after March 1, 1998 that is equipped to tow another air- braked vehicle shall be equipped with one or more separate electrical circuits, specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle(s). Such a circuit shall be adequate to enable the antilock system on each town vehicle to be fully operable. (Emphasis added.)

You believe that the phrase "separate electrical circuit" allows for the continued use of the single SAE J560 connector if one of the seven pins provides full-time power for the ABS. You further believe that the ABS malfunction signal can be multiplexed on any circuit of the connector and that the other trailer devices can be powered off the circuit as long as the circuit is adequate to enable the antilock system on each towed vehicle to be fully operable.

In the March 10, 1995 final fule, NHTSA decided to adopt the proposed full-time power requirement for trailer ABSs. (60 FR 13216) The agency explained that it amended the standard's wording to clarify that towing vehicles must have a corresponding separate cirucit specifically provided to power the antilock system on the towed vehicle or vehicles. The agency stated that requiring a separate circuit "will ensure the strongest possible source of electrical power from the tractor to ensure the functioning of all the ECUs and modulators that are employed in the antilock brake system, or systems, on single trailers, or multiple trailers and converter dollies in multi-trailer combinations." It also stated that this requirement will ensure a continuous malfunction indication whenever a malfunction exists. The agency further stated that it has left the decision about which type of connector should be used to the industry.

In response to your question about the use of one of the pins in the seven-pin connector to provide full-time power for the ABS, the use of such a pin would be permissible provided that the

P2 pin services a "separate" electrical circuit to "specifically provide" full time power for the trailers in combination vehicles. This means that the circuit's sole function must be to provide ABS powering, i.e., other trailer devices may not be powered off this separate electrical circuit. This would preclude the use of the pin to power the ABS malfunction signal. Since the requirement for the ABS malfunction circuit did not specify that the circuit used for transmitting the malfunction signal be a "separate" one, ABS malfunction signals can be multiplexed on other circuits with pins in the electrical connector, but no on the circuit and pins used to power the ABS system.

It is important to note that the ABS semitrailer fleet study report (DOT HS 808 059) concluded that the voltages delivered by powering system approaches that employed dedicated separate circuits (i.e., the Cole Hersee, ISO, and 6-pin auxiliary systems) were well within the required limits for ECU powering; whereas, the voltages delivered through the stoplamp circuit did not perform as well. The agency concluded that these data indicate the superiority of a separate circuit powering of the trailer ABS and therefore, justify the separate circuit requirement.

As you are aware, NHTSA received several petitions for reconsideration about the separate electrical circuit. The agency anticipates that the final rule in response to these petitions for reconsideration will have a detailed discussion of these requirements. In addition, the agency may decide to modify these requirements.

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

Sincerely,

ID: 32901.doc

Mr. Timothy A. Green
Attorney
Ford Motor Company
Office of the General Counsel
Suite 728 - Parklane Towers East
One Parklane Boulevard
Dearborn, Michigan 48126-2493

Dear Mr. Green:

This responds to your letter of July 24, 1996, concerning whether particular vehicles can be included within a certain company's fleet for CAFE purposes. The factual situation, which includes car companies, A and B, and an importer, C, can be summarized as follows:

Car company A is the single largest shareholder of car company B, holding over one third of the outstanding shares of B. Agreements between car company A and car company B stipulate that company A will have substantial influence over the design and production of vehicles manufactured by company B. Vehicles produced by company B are imported into the United States by company C. Company B is the single largest shareholder of C, with fifty percent of the outstanding shares of C.

You have asked whether you, as company A in the factual situation described above, can include the vehicles imported by company C in its fleet for CAFE purposes. As discussed below, it is our opinion that the answer is yes.

The following sections of Chapter 329 of Title 49 of the United States Code, "Automobile Fuel Economy" are relevant to answering your question:

32902(a)(4) "automobile manufactured by a manufacturer" includes every automobile manufactured by a person that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the manufacturer, but does not include an automobile manufactured by the person that is exported not later than 30 days after the end of the model year in which the automobile is manufactured.

32901(a)(12) "manufacture" (except under section 32902(d) of this title) means to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the United States or to import.

Company C imports vehicles produced by company B into the United States. While company C neither designs or produces these vehicles, C is their manufacturer for CAFE purposes. Company B, given its 50 percent ownership of company C and its control over the design and production of the vehicles, controls company C. The principal question, therefore, is whether company A "controls" company B to the extent that the cars imported by company C may be included in company A's CAFE fleet.

The term "control" as used in 32902(a)(4) is not defined elsewhere in Chapter 329 or the legislative history of the Chapter and its predecessor, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act. In past interpretations the agency has indicated that the term as used in the CAFE context may have the same definition as it has when used in a corporate law context. In the corporate law context, the issue of control is important for determining whether the controlling persons have violated any fiduciary duties to the corporation and other shareholders. Control in that sense refers to ownership of a large enough bloc of a company's stock to constitute effective voting control of the firm.

For the purposes of Chapter 329, control is important for determining a company's corporate average fuel economy and total production. For CAFE purposes, "control" is the ability to exercise a major influence over a company's average fuel economy and production. In addition to the ownership of a controlling bloc of stock, control for our purposes could be shown by control over the design and availability of certain models and other factors affecting production, sales mix and technological improvements.

Applying these terms to the facts presented by your letter compels the conclusion that cars imported by company C may be included in company A's fleet for CAFE purposes. Company C is controlled by company B. Company B is controlled by Company A by virtue of Company A's ownership of more than one-third of the outstanding shares of B and agreements between A and B indicating that A has the ability to exercise considerable influence over the design, production, and model mix of vehicles produced by B. Accordingly, NHTSA believes that it is appropriate for cars imported by C, a company controlled by B, to be included in A's fleet.

I hope that this letter is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please contact me or Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5263.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:533

d:9/19/96

ID: 1983-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 12 1983

NOA-30 Mr. Shizuo Suzuki Nissan Research & Development, Inc. 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 707 P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your letter of September 22, 1983, regarding the applicability of Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to a power window switch separated from and located in front of a conventional armrest. Additionally, you ask for clarification of the definition of an "armrest" under paragraph S3.5 of the standard.

Upon review of your sketches of the power window switch and conventional armrest, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that this switch does not come within the scope of the meaning of the term "armrest." The design and location of the conventional armrest would apparently preclude uyse of the structure housing the switch as an armrest. Therefore, the power window switch is not subject to the requirements of S3.5 of Standard No. 201.

In support of your contention that S3.5 does not apply to the power window switch, you refer to an oral interpretation of 1976 concerning assist straps and armrests. Please note that this agency is not bound by any oral interpretations as to the requirements of Federal safety standards. Although agreeing with Nissan's conclusion that Standard No. 201 is not applicable to the diagrammed power window switch, this agency did not base its determination on the stated oral interpretation of 1976.

Further, you ask for a clarification of the definition of an "armrest." The term "armrest" is not defined under Standard No. 201. The basic meaning of "armrest" in Webster's New Third International Dictionary is "a support for the arm." To define this term further would only serve to limit this agency's ability to respond adequately under Standard No. 201 to future innovations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC. Washington, DC 20037 September 22, 1983 Ref: W-024-S Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing on behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. to request an interpretation concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (49 CFR Part 571).

Nissan's question is whether or not the requirements of S 3.5 question of MVSS 201 are applicable to the power window switch which is located in front of a conventional arm rest as shown below:

"INSERT"

Furthermore, it would be most helpful if you could clarify the definition of an "Arm Rest."

The Engineering Staff of Nissan think that the power window switch does not need to meet the requirements of MVSS 201 for the following reasons:

* The power window switch cannot be used as a conventional arm rest. Moreover, there is a conventional arm rest.

* When Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. asked for an oral interpretation in 1976, concerning whether the assist strap shown below had to meet the requirements of MVSS 201, NHTSA replied as follows:

* If the assist strap is integrated with the arm rest, the assist strap must meet the requirements of S 3.5 of MVSS 201.

* However, if the assist strap is separated from the arm rest, and even if both parts are combined when installed on a door, that assist strap does not need to meet the requirements of S 3.5 of MVSS 201.

"INSERT"

Thank you for your prompt reply in interpreting this matter for me.

Very truly yours,

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

SS:kms

cc: Mr. Steve Oesch Chief Counsel Office

ID: 77-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. C. L. Ray - Governor of Washington; DIXY LEE RAY -- GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to express this agency's views on legislation recently enacted by the State of Washington, which appears to be preempted by Federal regulation of the same subject matter.

Specifically we understand that R.C.W. @ 46.37.320 was amended in May 1977 to require that motor vehicle "lighting devices"

". . . shall correlate with, and, so far as practicable, conform to the then current standards and specifications of the society of automotive engineers applicable to such equipment and to the headlamp standards established by the United Nations agreement concerning the adoption of approval and reciprocal recognition of approval for motor vehicle equipment and parts done at Geneva on March 20, 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian standards association (CSA standard D106.2): Provided, that the sale, installation, and use of any headlamp meeting the standards of either the society of automotive engineers or the United Nations agreement, as amended, shall be lawful in this state."

Under 15 U.S.C. 1392(d):

"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." [Emphasis added.]

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(a) [Section 103(a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966] Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), has been established, effective January 1, 1972, as the Federal standard for lighting devices both as original and replacement equipment on motor vehicles.

Although Standard No. 108 incorporates by reference many lighting standards of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) it contains numerous qualifications of, and variations from, the SAE specifications. Even when Federal requirements and SAE specifications are identical, amendments by the SAE, which occur frequently, do not amend the corresponding Federal requirements. In short, that portion of the amendment to RCW @ 46.37.320 requiring compliance to SAE specifications does not establish requirements that are identical to those of Standard No. 108 and, in our opinion, are preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) and of no legal effect.

In addition, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, it does not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps on passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, does not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to R.C.W. @ 46.37.320 is, in our opinion, also preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.

As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Washington manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States through the State of Washington any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon R.C.W. @ 46.37.320, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (e.g. foglamps).

Section 1392(d) and the Act's preemptive effect have been invariably upheld. (See e.g. Chrysler Corp. v. Malloy, 294 F. Supp. 524 (U.S.D.C. Vt. 1968), Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, 419 F.2d 499 (C.C.A. 2 1969)). We would also observe that the interpretation by an administering agency of its own statutes and regulations, has been viewed by courts as "of controlling weight." (Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969) quoted with approval in Chrysler Corp. v. Tofany, supra, at 512.)

We would appreciate the views of the State of Washington on this subject. Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

ID: nht70-2.3

DATE: 04/20/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1970, with which you submitted for our examination a sample format for consumer information produced by a computer.

The sample that you submitted does deviate from the requirements of the consumer information regulations in that the required warnings and explanations are placed on a sheet that is separate from the numerical data. The regulations generally require that the information be presented in the form illustrated by the published figures, with the explanatory matter in proximity to the numerical data. I believe that computer printing is flexible enough to allow you to accomplish this.

ID: nht72-5.8

DATE: 03/07/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Mobile Housing Group

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 18, 1972, in which you enclosed a copy of a label you propose to use to fulfill your obligation under part 567 of Title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The nomenclature does not meet the regulation. Paragraph 567.4(g) states "The label shall contain the following statements, . . ., in the order shown" (emphasis added). Your label does not identify (Illegible Words) from front to rear as specified in paragraph 567.4(g)(h)

An amendment to Part 567 was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 1971 (36 F.R.2. 23571) that allows manufacturers, of their option, to list more than one act of values for CVVR and (Illegible Word). However, the amendment contains specific language to be used in those circumstances.

We understand that your purpose is to supply only one label type to your various plants for installation on several models. The Certification regulations require each vehicle to be labeled with specific information applicable to that vehicle. We do not consider (Illegible Line) presented, to be consistent with (Illegible Word) requirements.