ID: aiam4789

"Dear Mr. Roden: This responds to your questions about the requirement for key-locking systems in section S4.2(b) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection (49 CFR 571.114). As explained below, the enclosed copy of the agency's recent final rule amending this provision may be relevant to your inquiry (55 FR 21868, May 30, 1990). By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, ('Vehicle Safety Act,' 15 USC 1381 et seq.) requires every new motor vehicle sold in the United States to be certified as complying with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The Vehicle Safety Act specifies that the manufacturer must certify that each of its vehicles complies with all applicable safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture. Any person violating the Vehicle Safety Act by manufacturing or selling new noncomplying vehicles may be liable for potential penalties of $1,000 per violation up to $800,000 for a related series of violations. One such Federal safety standard is Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, which applies to passenger cars, and to trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles having a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less. Your first question asked whether section S4.2(b) requires key locking systems to prevent removal of the ignition key except when the transmission is in the 'park' position. Section S4.2(b) currently requires such vehicles to have a 'key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent...(b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle, or both.' However, the agency has recently amended section S4.2(b) to read as follows: Each vehicle shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, prevents: (a) the normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and (b) either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a 'park' position, the key-locking system shall prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. You should be aware that this amendment takes effect on September 1, 1992. For vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) merely requires that when the key is removed, the key-locking system must prevent steering or forward self-mobility, or both. This provision does not address the issue of the transmission's position at the time of key removal. In contrast, under the recent amendment applicable to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1992, S4.2(b) requires automatic transmission vehicles to prevent removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 'park' or becomes locked in 'park' as the direct result of removing the key. Your second question asked whether a replacement key-locking system is required to comply with Standard No. 114. Because Standard No. 114 applies to new motor vehicles and not to motor vehicle equipment, the standard does not in itself require aftermarket replacement systems to comply with its requirements. However, you should be aware that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly 'rendering inoperative,' in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a vehicle to comply with an applicable safety standard. Your third question asked how long the key locking system is required to perform under S4.2(b) of the standard. The Vehicle Safety Act only requires manufacturers to assure that vehicles and equipment comply with applicable safety standards at the time of the first consumer purchase. However, please note that if at any time a manufacturer or the agency determines that a vehicle or item of equipment contains a safety-related defect, which could result from the failure of a system to operate properly, the manufacturer is required to notify all product purchasers of the defect and remedy the defect without charge. See 15 U.S.C. 1411-1414. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 1983-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATON

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for a reconsideration of our December 8, 19B2, letter in which we stated that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. You have pointed out that this appears to reverse a previous interpretation issued by this office on March 15, 1978, in which we concluded that such covers were not precluded.

As is well known, SAE Standard J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly precludes the use of covers in front of headlamps in use. Because Standard No. 108 allows installation on motorcycles of half of a passenger car sealed beam headlighting system (principally because SAE J584 allows use of headlamps meeting SAE J579 Sealed Beam Headlamp Units), the 1982 interpretation applied the prohibition against covers to all sealed beam headlamps, even those used on motorcycles. With respect to unsealed lamps, the agency cited paragraph S4.1.3, the prohibition against installation of additional equipment impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and concluded that the possibility of deterioration of light output through cracked or discolored covers precluded covers over nonsealed lamps. On the other hand, the 1978 interpretation concluded that, since the cross referenced J579 did not itself reference J580, the prohibition did not apply.

We have reviewed this matter and have concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard No. 108. As the 1978 interpretation implies, and as you make explicit, the only standard Table III directly incorporates for motorcycle headlamps is J584, whereas J580 is one of several standards directly incorporated for headlamps on four-wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, we still conclude that these covers are prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

If, for example, the angle of the cover is so extreme that headlamp "effectiveness" is "impaired" because of deterioration of the beam, then the manufacturer may wish to remove the shield or redesign it. If, as another example, a plastic cover is intended and a manufacturer has knowledge that it is susceptible to accelerated hazing or cracking, the manufacturer should not use a cover manufactured of this plastic.

In summary, this letter modifies both our 1978 and 1982 opinions by concluding that headlamp covers for motorcycles are permissible if they will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

The agency is reviewing this subject to determine if rulemaking is advisable to prohibit covers of any sort over motorcycle headlamps, similar to the prohibition against such covers on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1983

Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: Motorcycle Headlamp Cover

Dear Mr. Vinson:

On February 1, 1983, members of the motorcycle industry met with you and NHTSA rulemaking (lighting) and enforcement personnel to discuss NHTSA's new interpretation regarding the installation of transparent covers in front of motorcycle headlamps. This interpretation, contained in a December 8, 1982 letter from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, stated that NHTSA now views that FMVSS 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. This reverses a previous interpretation contained in a March 15, 1978 letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., then NHTSA Chief Counsel, which stated that NHTSA did not read the prohibition against covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with either sealed or unsealed headlamps because the referenced motorcycle headlamp standard in Table III of FMVSS 108, SAE J584, does not prohibit the installation of such covers.

We disagree with the reversal of the earlier interpretation.

Table III of FMVSS 108 requires motorcycles to comply with SAE Standard J584, April 1964. SAE J584 sets forth photometric requirements for motorcycle headlamps and does not prohibit glass covers. It also provides for alternative compliance by fitting headlamps conforming to SAE 579 (which, incidentally, also does not prohibit such covers). S4.1.1.34 provides that a motorcycle may be equipped with various combinations of headlamps from the passenger car headlamp systems, and contains no prohibition of headlamp covers. The only prohibition against the use of headlamp covers in FMVSS 108 is contained in SAE Standard J580a/b, referenced in Table III and applies only to sealed beam headlamps installed in passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. SAE J580a and J580b are concerned with the aim of a headlamp's beam, and proscribe glass covers so the aim can be readily inspected using a mechanical aimer that registers on the headlamp's three aiming pads. J584 motorcycle headlamps do not have these aiming pads, so there is no such need to preclude the use of glass covers.

NHTSA to support its position that Standard 108 precludes the use of covers over motorcycle headlamps relies on two arguments. We disagree with both:

1. That the prohibition contained in SAE Standard J580 applies to motorcycles, since SAE J580 is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108.

SAE J580 does not apply to motorcycles. It is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 only for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The primary referenced requirement for motorcycles in FMVSS 108 is SAE J584, which contains no such prohibition. SAE J584, in turn, permits alternative compliance with SAE J579, which neither contains such a prohibition nor references J580. In addition, S4.1.1.34 contains additional means of compliance for motorcycles, but no such prohibition.

2. That the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of S4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 precludes the use of such covers because the covers "impair the effectiveness" of headlamps.

This is an improper interpretation of S4.1.3. The impaired effectiveness requirement was intended to preclude the use of devices that render the required devices (although themselves meeting the standard) ineffective. For example, the fitting of a red lamp to a vehicle immediately adjacent to the required amber front side marker lamp and likewise an amber lamp fitted adjacent to the required rear red side marker lamp would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps, as ambiguity would result. Such an impairment would also result from the placement of an extremely bright lamp adjacent to a signal lamp, thus obliterating the light output of the signal lamp. Impairment of effectiveness does not relate to durability requirements as NHTSA would suggest.

In those instances where durability of lamps, lens materials, and other equipment is deemed to be important, FMVSS 108 contains specific durability requirments applicable to such equipment. As long as the headlamp cover does not preclude the headlamp from conforming to the performance requirements specified in FMVSS 108 at the time of sale of the motorcycle, the cover does not "impair the effectiveness" of the required equipment.

The interpretation of December 8 refers to the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of FMVSS 108, S4.1.3, as if impairing were an absolute, regardless of whether an impaired lamp were still within specifications. Compliance with specifications, however, is implicit to S4.1.3 because only lamps complying with specifications are required by this standard. S4.3.1.1. clearly relates compliance of any lamp to meeting or not meeting photometric output.

In addition, the preamble to the January 17, 1983 notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS 108 (Docket 81-11: Notice 2) discusses the very subject of permissible impairment and concludes that compliance with required photometrics is the only test that can be applied. In rejecting petitioner's argument that conformance of a lamp should be based on relative degradation from the original output, NHTSA states (48 FR 1994), "....a lamp that far exceeded the minimum could "fail" if diminution exceeded 10 percent, even though the safety based J579c minima were still met. Such a result would appear to be excessive as a minimum safety standard. ...NHTSA believes it simpler and preferable that photometric measurements be taken at the end of each of the relevant tests in the sequential test series, and that the lamp at each such point comply with the photometrics of J579c". Thus, this preamble recognizes that photometric standards are composed of minimums and maximums, and that there would be no difference between a lamp designed to lower output and one that deteriorated to that same level, as long as both lamps at the reduced level of output comply with specifications.

That compliance is the sole criterion is further underscored in the letter of interpretation from Frank Berndt, then NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel, to Roderick A. Willcox, July 23, 1976, in which it is stated, in reference to a bug screen placed in front of headlamps, "Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579 or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580)."

One of the issues raised at the meeting was whether the BMW headlamp/cover complied with the photometric requirments of FMVSS 108. We indicated to you that we would have such a unit tested at an independent laboratory and submit the results to NHTSA. Electrical Testing Laboratories (ETL) has just completed the environmental and photometric tests prescribed by FMVSS 108 on one of our headlamps, and we attach a copy of their report. The report shows that the headlamp with glass cover passed the photometric tests of SAE J584, April 1964, both before and after the required environmental tests.

BMW uses the J584 motorcycle headlamp because, as recognized by NHTSA in 44 FR 20536, its photometrics are superior for motorcycles. The glass cover is designed as an integral part of the lamp and provides improved aerodynamics, which result in self-cleansing action; the cover also protects the headlamp from impacts and prevents the leadlamp's exposure to rain and dirt. Heat from the headlamp, which is on all the time, is sufficient to prevent buildup of moisture on the cover, while the cover, because of its distance in front of the lamp, minimizes the baking on of dirt and bugs. Generally, we find that most motorcycle owners maintain their vehicles better than do passenger car owners, and tend not to ride them as much in inclement weather.

Also enclosed is a copy of an ETL report showing that the glass cover complies with the light stability, luminous transmittance, impact, fracture and abrasion resistance tests of Z26.1. In the past, both AAMVA and California Highway Patrol have issued certificates of approval on the cover glass, as well as the whole lamp (including the cover glass).

We are not aware of any field experience indicating any problems with discoloration or cracks in the cover glass, or deterioration of the reflector.

Also, as we agreed in our meeting, we are attaching the names and addresses of owners in the Washington, D.C. area of older BMW motorcycles fitted with such covers whom you may wish to contact. This information is being provided to enable you to examine the headlamp/cover assemblies of these older motorcycles to determine what, if any, deterioration in headlamp performance can be attributed to age. This would aid you in the formulation of future proposed rulemaking should you later decide some durability require-ment may be appropriate for such lamp/cover assemblies.

Aside from a perceived (but not demonstrated) durability concern on NHTSA's part with respect to headlamp covers generally, the primary reason repeatedly given by NHTSA in opposition to such covers is their effect on mechanical aimers. Obviously, with a motorcycle there is no such concern since motorcycle headlamps can not be mechanically aimed because mechanical aiming requires the use of two headlamps, while motorcycles are permitted to have only one headlamp. This is the reason a motorcycle headlamp is not required to have the three aiming pads mounted on the lens.

In conclusion, we believe the interpretation contained in the December 8, 1982 Berndt letter is in error, particularly as it would apply to motorcycles equipped with headlamps conforming to SAE J584, as specified by Table III in FMVSS 108. Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

DE/fw 0510 - 83 Attachments

Owners of older BMW motorcycles having cover glass in front of headlamp who are willing to have their headlamps examined:

David Gray 1977 BMW RS 305 Tapawingo Road Vienna, VA 22180 Telephone: 703 938-0060

Robert Henig 1977 BMW RS 11800 Dewey Road 35,000 miles Wheaton, MD 20906 Telephone: 301 942-5198

George R. Sams 1979 BMW RT 1104 Tyler Avenue 21,000 miles Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 301 267-3487 Bus.

301 263-9473 Home

ID: 003917rbm

[ ]

Dear [ ]:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of the advanced air bag requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (FMVSS No. 208). You specifically ask whether the telltale requirements of S19.2.2 would prohibit a design that would cause the telltale to flash for five seconds to inform vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You have also requested that the name of your company be kept confidential due to the confidential business nature of the contemplated design. That request is granted. I am pleased to provide a response to your request for interpretation. The design discussed in your letter would not be prohibited by S19.2.2.

On May 12, 2000, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register (65 FR 30680) requiring advanced air bags in all passenger cars, multi-purpose vehicles, light trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 lb or less. The phase-in for these new requirements begins September 1, 2003. That final rule established new, advanced air bag performance requirements to minimize the risk of injury to children, as well as new requirements to enhance protection of small and mid-size adults.

Under S19.2.2, any air bag system that uses automatic suppression technology to satisfy the requirements of the standard must have a telltale that illuminates whenever the air bag is suppressed and that does not illuminate whenever the air bag is active, except that the telltale need not illuminate when the passenger seat is unoccupied. S19.2.2 is silent as to how the telltale must operate while the status of the air bag is in transition. Nor does the provision address flashing, as opposed to continuous, illumination. S20.2 tests the air bag suppression system by placing a child restraint, test dummy, or human in the passenger seat, starting the engine and then waiting 10 seconds before determining the status of the air bag.

Under the design contemplated by your company, the required telltale would flash for five seconds to notify the vehicle occupants that the status of the air bag has changed. You state that you believe this feature will better alert both drivers and front seat passengers when the status of the air bag has changed than simply turning the telltale on or off. Under your design, the five seconds of flashing would be triggered by a change in status from "active" to "inactive" and vice versa. After the five-second flashing period has ended, the telltale would either illuminate steadily or go out, depending on the activation status of the air bag.

Nothing in S19.2.2 prohibits a telltale that flashes to inform vehicle occupants that the air bag has transitioned from an active to inactive status. While S19.2.2(h) prohibits telltale illumination other than when the air bag has been turned off (except during a bulb check), the intention behind S19.2.2(h) is to let vehicle occupants know whether or not their air bag is suppressed without requiring them to discern varying light intensities or other potentially confusing designs. Accordingly, we interpret the standard to permit a system that transitions from continually burning to flashing for a brief period of time, no more than 10 seconds, after the air bag has been reactivated.

Thus, your contemplated design would be permissible under S19.2.2 as long as the telltale only flashes when the air bag is actually suppressed or for a brief period of time after the air bag has been reactivated. Please note that while nothing in the standard would prohibit the telltale from continuously flashing whenever the air bag is suppressed, such designs could be unduly annoying and could lead a vehicle owner to disconnect the telltale. Likewise, an occupant detection system that regularly turned the air bag on and off because the status of the air bag was constantly in transition would be problematic.

Finally, we note that while a flashing design is not prohibited, any vehicle manufacturer choosing to incorporate such a design in its telltale would need to either provide an alternative means of determining whether the air bag is active or suppressed consistent with S19.2.3 or limit the flash to less than 10 seconds. This is because the test procedure set forth in S20.2, and its corollaries in S22.2 and S26.2, require the manufacturer to provide a mechanism that NHTSA can use to determine whether the automatic suppression system is, in fact, able to reliably classify the front passenger seat occupant. For a continually flashing system, the alternative means is necessary to differentiate between a properly functioning system and a problematic system that is continually transitioning between suppression and activation.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact Rebecca MacPherson of my staff at (202) 366-2992 should you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.7/16/03

ID: 06-006782drnrev

ID: 16264.ogm

Mr. Gary Gawura
Program Manager
Track Corporation
1091 Centre Drive
Suite 210
Auburn Hills, MI 48236

Dear Mr. Gawura:

This responds to your letter concerning Standard No. 207, Seating Systems and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages as they apply to a seat design having an upper seat belt anchorage integrated into the seat and lower seat belt anchorages integrated into the adjuster. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You ask several questions regarding the proper test procedures for designs such as yours where the seat belt assembly anchorages are integrated into the seat rather than attached to the vehicle itself. Your letter contains a description and diagram of the current test procedure used by your company to test seats and seat belt anchorages. You indicate that in order to test the belt anchorages, a 3000 pound load is applied to the shoulder and the lap belts as specified in S5.2 of Standard No. 210. You also indicate that a "C.G. force at 20 times the weight of the seat is applied to the seatback and another C.G. force a t 20 times the weight of the pedestal is applied to the pedestal. These loads are held for ten (10) seconds."

The first question you ask is whether it is necessary, under your current test procedure as described above, to apply a load to the pedestal because, as a seat manufacturer, you are not certifying the attachment of the seat to the vehicle.

Depending on the standard involved, Federal motor vehicle safety standards may apply to a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, to a vehicle manufacturer or to both. S2 of Standard No. 209 specifies that the standard applies "to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. Therefore, the manufacturer of the vehicle is responsible for ensuring that the product meets the requirements of Standard No. 209. Given the fact that Standard No. 209 requires that the seat be installed in a vehicle when compliance testing is performed, it may not be possible for your company to perform such testing.

If, as your diagram indicates, the load being applied to the pedestal portion of the seat is intended to be the load which must be applied to cg₂, the center of gravity of the portion of the seat below the adjuster, as required by S5.1.1(c), a vehicle manufacturer would be required to ensure that the seat assembly met those requirements. As a seat manufacturer, your company is not obligated to do so.

You also ask that the agency comment on a proposed test procedure which your company believes would be more appropriate for testing seats with integrated seat belt anchorages for both lap and shoulder belts. As depicted in a diagram in your letter, this test applies a 3000 pound load to the lap and shoulder belt anchorages and a 20g load to the seat back and the seat "pan."

Your diagram refers to the load applied to the seat back as the upper CG load and the load applied to the seat "pan" as the lower CG load. As the seat "pan" in the seat depicted in your diagram is above the adjuster, the lower CG load shown in this diagram is presumably not the actual lower CG load but rather represents your nomenclature for the load that would be applied to cg₂ under S5.1.1(c).

The test that your company proposes clearly does not meet the current requirements of Standard No. 207. It is not clear from your letter if this test is performed with the seat attached to the vehicle. If it is not, the test would obviously not test the strength of the attachment of the seat to the vehicle. Secondly, it is not possible to evaluate your proposed test from the information contained in your letter. However, it appears that the test you propose would place greater loads on the seat frame and adjuster than the current requirements of S5.1.

Finally, you ask for a complete set of standards and rulings related to the testing of integrated adjusters and seats. The requirements for seat belt anchorages are found in S5 of Standard No. 210. As you are aware, the requirements for seats are found in S5.1 of Standard No. 207. Copies of these standards are enclosed as well as the accompanying test procedures.

NHTSA is currently studying possible changes to Standard No. 207 as well as an October 28, 1997 petition for rulemaking submitted by Bornemann Products, Inc. requesting that the agency initiate rulemaking to modify Standard No. 207 in regard to the testing of integrated seats.

I hope that this is responsive to your inquiry.

If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at (202) 366-5253.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:207
d.4/1/98

ID: 1982-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concerning differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.

Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittance requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.

As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider sun screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.

You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. The agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.

Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, in applicable part, that:

No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authority to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides, in applicable part, 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.

Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Part 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.

Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the height of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.

ENCLS.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY OPERATIONS

November 16, 1981

Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is presently in the process of reviewing its current inspection regulations to determine the validity of present equipment requirements or their present exclusion. If you could assist by responding to the two issues which follow, it would be greatly appreciated.

Our first concern is the validity of the VESC regulation regarding motor vehicle sun-screening (VESC Stand 20, approved July 1980), and any distinction from the National level between tinting by the original manufacturer and after market applications. Our specific concern is the 70 percent transmittance level set by VESC. Please refer to the enclosed copy of VESC 20.

The second issue in which we are interested and which, under certain circumstances is controlled by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, is bumper and windshield heights on newly manufactured reproductions of old cars. Our present regulations specify a bumper height of 16"-20", and a vertical windshield height of no less than 12". Please see the enclosed information concerning a 1950 Porsche reproduction.

Any information you could supply on these two matters would be very helpful to this Department in determining what standards to set, so as to insure minimum compliance with any Federal requirements. If you have any additional questions, please contact me.

Kathy G. Phillips, Manager Vehicle Safety Division

ID: 1982-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Don Vesco Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, asking about the legality of "covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover."

You reported that manufacturers of motorcycles and fairings are producing such covers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration views this practice as prohibited and will take appropriate steps to make it views known. The legal authority for this is based upon a requirement of the SAE incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or, alternatively, paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard.

SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions), Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A paragraph in each version states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." SAE J580a applies to all sealed beam headlamps, while the scope of J580b is considerably narrower, including only those not covered by SAE J579c.

The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

For the reasons stated above, the agency has concluded that no headlamp may have a glass or plastic shield in front of it when in use, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is used.

As for the turn signals, no part of the vehicle may impair their visibility through horizontal angles 45 degrees to the right and left of the vehicle (for right and left turn signals respectively) measured at the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. An unobstructed illuminated area of outer lens surface of at least 2 square inches excluding reflex is necessary to meet this requirement. You will have to judge for yourself whether the turn signal requirements are met with your planned cover in place.

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

SINCERELY,

DON VESCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

September 15, 1982

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

To whom it may concern;

We are a small manufacturing firm and we produce various motorcycle products. Our main product at this time is a motorcycle fairing as shown in the photo on this letterhead. I am in the redesign stage of this fairing and would like to produce a product with flush fitting turn signals and possibly a covered headlight. I cannot find any D.O.T. specifications on the covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover. Many motorcycle accessory companies are producing fairings with this feature and, at least two motorcycle manufacturing companies are producing motorcycles with this feature. I have enclosed a number of copies showing the headlamp coverings as now produced.

What I want to know is what specifications are required to add this feature, or, is there simply nothing stating that such a feature is permissible?

I also would like to know what specifications will be required to add a clear covering over normal D.O.T. approved turnsignals. I can find no ruling that in any way prohibits or even mentions any clear covering that does not interfere with the operating of the lamp or the visability. We have limited funds and cannot afford to tool up for a special flush fitting turnsignal. However, our experiments have added up to a 23% increase in fuel economy on our test motorcycle using the new design and we feel that the commuter can use any gain possible. A 23% increase in fuel economy with no mechanical changes and only aerodynamic improvements is significant.

Time is of the essense. We must have some information on this within the next 4 weeks. Thank you for your cooperation.

Matt Guzzetta, Vice-President

ID: 1983-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp. -- Arnold Van Ruitenbeck, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. van Ruitenbeek:

This responds to your recent letter asking for an interpre-tation concerning Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked whether your company could label two maximum load ratings on the sidewall of certain motorcycle tires it manufactures. One maximum load rating would be applicable at the tire's top-rated speed, while the other would be applicable at a speed of 60 miles per hour. Such labeling would violate Standard No. 119.

Section S6.5 of Standard No. 119 requires that certain information be labeled on the sidewall of all tires to which the standard applies. Section S6.5 requires the maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure to appear on all motorcycle tires, shown as follows:

Max load lbs at psi cold.

The maximum load rating on the tire's sidewall, as the name implies, is intended to alert the consumer to the tire's maximum capabilities. Allowing tire manufacturers to specify more than one maximum load, based on various vehicle speeds, would dilute the value of the maximum load information to the consumer, by introducing the possibility of confusion and uncertainty about the actual maximum load the tire could carry while in use on a particular trip. To avoid this, the agency has stated on each occasion when questions have arisen in this area that only one maximum load rating may appear on the sidewall of tires.

Please understand that the agency does not doubt that these tires can carry higher loads at lower speeds. Further, it does not have any objection to your publicizing those loads in your advertising literature, which you enclosed with your letter. However, the purpose of the labeling requirements on the sidewall of tires is not to give the consumer information for all possible operating conditions for the tire. Indeed, there is not enough space on the sidewall of the tire to do this. The purpose of the labeling requirements is to provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, with technical information necessary for the safe use of the tires. In the case of the maximum load information, this necessitates providing only one maximum load rating on the sidewall of the tires.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 21, 1983

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION 200 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are requesting an advisory opinion on motorcycle tire sidewall markings as required by FMVSS 119.

Continental motorcycle tires are made in Germany where there are no speed limits on the Autobahn.

Motocycle tire load ratings are governed by the speed rating of the tire: the higer the speed rating, the lower the load and, visa versa, the lower the speed the higher the load.

Our SuperTwin tire (see attached brochure) have a V-rating for 150 MPH and the load rating molded into the tire is for this speed. At 60 MPH the load rating is aproximately 52% higher - as is shown in the last column of the enclosed brochure.

In our program are two sizes that are mainly used on touring bikes, usually ridden with one extra passenger and extra luggage.

We are now asking for your permission to engrave, in addition to all required DOT markings, the higer 60 MPH load capacity on the sidewall of the tire, underneath where the DOT load rating for 150 MPH now appears.

The proposed sentence is: For size 30/90 V 16 TK44 : At 60 MPH the load capacity is 880 lbs at 40 PSI. For size 130/90 V 17 TK44 : At 60 Mph the load capacity is 900 lbs at 40 PSI.

This information is very helpful for the rider and contributes to the safe operation of the motorcycle. We look forward to hearing from you.

Very truly yours,

Arnold van Ruitenbeek Vice President

ID: 1983-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. C. H. Percy, U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 28 1982 NOA-30

The Honorable Charles H. Percy United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Percy:

This responds to your letter of April 11, 1983 (Ref. 3098500010) requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mrs. D. Parutti. Mrs. Parutti is concerned about the growing practice of persons installing darkly tinted film on passenger car windows. She believes this is a dangerous practice because it prevents other drivers from seeing inside the vehicles. Following is a discussion of the implications under Federal law of installing these tinting films.

A Federal regulation already exists which, under certain circumstances, precludes the practice referred to by Mrs. Parutti. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the authority to govern the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars) and abrasion resistance. This specification for light transmittance precludes darkly-tinted windows in new automobiles.

The agency has stated in past interpretations that solar films such as the type referred to in Mrs. Parutti's letter are not glazing materials themselves, and would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, installation of such films on new motor vehicles would be prohibited if the vehicle glazing no longer complied with the light transmittance or abrasion requirements of the standard. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that manufacturer or dealer has to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(1) prohibits any person from offering for sale or selling any motor vehicle or equipment that fails to comply with applicable safety standards.

After a new vehicle has been sold to the consumer, he may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner could install the tinting film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation adversely affected the light transmittance and abrasion resistance of his vehicle's glazing. It should be noted, however, that section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. "Render inoperative" means to remove, disconnect or degrade the performance of a system or element of design installed pursuant to the Federal safety standards. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a solar film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Whether this would be the case would have to be determined by the person making the installation. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

The individual States must govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners since the agency does not have authority in this area. Thus, it would be up to the States to preclude owners from applying films or one-way glass on their own vehicles. Mrs. Parutti may wish to contact the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws (555 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60204) to find out which States have laws that would preclude owners from placing solar film on their automobile windows.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure Constituent's Letter

April 11, 1983

TO: Ms. Carole Walls Liaison Officer National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

FROM: Charles H. Percy United States Senator

Because of the desire of this office to be responsive to all inquiries and communications, your consideration of the attached is requested. Your findings and views, in duplicate form, will be greatly appreciated.

Please reference our file number, 3098500010 and respond to:

Office of United States Senator Charles H. Percy Washington, DC 20510

Our File 3098500010

ID: 1984-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: F.H. Tubbert -- Vice President, Operations, Ottawa Truck Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. F. H. Tubbert Vice PReside, Operations Ottawa Truck Corporation 415 E. Dundee St. Ottawa, KS 66047

This responds to your recent letter to this office seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars. (49 CPR 371.120). Specifically, you stated that your company has entered an agreement with a French manufacturer to market their multi-purpose vehicle in the United States. You further stated that while you have been upgrading the vehicle to comply with applicable safety standards, you have found a problem with Standard No. 120 as it applies to the tires on this vehicle. The vehicle is equipped with industrial class tires intended to provide "high flotation over various terraine". Standard No. 120 does not prohibit these multi-purpose vehicles from being equipped with industrial class tires.

Section 3 of Standard No. 120 specifies that the requirements of that standard apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks, and some other vehicle types not relevant here. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined in 371.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." You have apparently tentatively determined that the vehicle you plan to market would be classified as a type of motor vehicle subject to Standard No. 120. Section 5.1.1 of Standard No. 120 reads as follows:

Except as specified in 3.1.3 each vehicle equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service shall be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of Standard No. 109 or Standard No. 19, and with rims that are listed by the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires, in accordance with 4.4 of Standard No. 109 or 3.1 of Standard No. 119, as applicable. (Emphasis added)

Apparently the difficulty you perceive with this requirement is that the tires with which the vehicle is equipped are not certified as complying with Standards No. 109 or 119, nor are the rims listed as suitable for use with the tires, pursuant to the relevant sections of those standards.

However, the requirement in Standard No. 120 applies only to vehicles which are equipped with pneumatic tires for highway service. The language in section 3.1.1 of Standard No. 120 was intended to exclude these vehicles which the manufacturer decides to equip with tires other than "tires for highway service." See 42 FR 7140, at 1741; February 7, l977.

Your letter stated that the vehicle you plan to market will be equipped with "an industrial class tire which provides high flotation over various terraine". This agency does not consider industrial class tires to be tires for highway service and therefore vehicles equipped with such tires need not satisfy section 5.1.1 of Standard No. 120. For your information, a check by our Rulemaking division of the listings of industrial class tires shown in the American, Japanese, and European tire standardization organizations found no listing of the tire size which you stated would be original equipment on this vehicle (16.3/75 R 20TL). You may wish to contact the vehicle manufacturer to be sure that this size is correct, and to be sure that it is promptly categorized as an industrial class tire.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

July 23, l984 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC

Dear Sirs: Ottawa Truck Corporation has entered into an agreement with Brimont, S.A., a french company, to market their multi-purpose vehicle in the United States.

In our efforts to upgrade the vehicle to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards we find a problem with Standards ll9 and 120, Tires and Rims. These Standards apply primarily to on-highway vehicles.

Our vehicle is an all terrain vehicle designed to be fitted with a variety of attachments to perform work off-highway and to operate occasionally on-highway between job sites. For this reason the vehicle is equipped with an industrial class tire (16.5/75R 20TL) which provides high flotation over various terrains. We request an interpretation of the application of these standards to our vehicle, whose primary use is off-highway. Sincerely, Ottawa Truck Corporation F. W. Tubbert Vice President, Operations FHT:jt