ID: nht87-1.85

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Gabriel J. Ferber -- Nesper, McElvein, Ferber and Digiacomo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to Mr. George Shifflett of our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, in which you sought an interpretation of 49 CFT Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. You asked whether Part 541 markings must be inscri bed on certain Canadian vehicles not originally manufactured for sale in this country. More specifically, you referred to @541.5(a), which provides, "In the case of passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and number standards, each such car subject to this standard must have an identifying number inscribed in a manner which ..." (Emphases added). You stated that your client is a direct importer of Canadian vehicles subject to the theft prevention standard. You state d that these vehicles have identification numbers affixed to the required major parts by their original manufacturer. While these Canadian vehicles are not certified as complying with the U.S. vehicle and bumper standards, you asserted that they are orig inally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards. Accordingly, you believe that Part 544 does not require these vehicles to have the identification number inscribed on the parts, but instead requires the identification number t o be inscribed or affixed. Since the original manufacturer has already affixed identification numbers on these vehicles, you believe your client is not required to add any identification number markings to these vehicles before certifying that they compl y with Part 541.

The crux of your argument is that those vehicles can be shown to be originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards, even though they are not certified as being so. We agree that this is possible, but it would take some ve ry convincing proof to establish this point. The Canadian safety standards are very similar to, but not identical with, the U.S. safety standards. Hence, the fact that a vehicle is certified as complying with Canadian safety standards does not establish that the vehicle was originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety standards.

Your letter stated that "compliance with U.S. safety and bumper standards is shown by reliance on the 'V73' designation or some other method." The V73 designation to which you refer is an internal billing code used by General Motors on the sales receipts for some vehicles. While you assert that this billing code designation means that the vehicle complies with U.S. vehicle standards, we have no confirmation from General Motors of this point. Further, vehicle manufacturers assign whatever meanings they c hoose to their billing code designations, and are free to change the assigned meanings whenever they wish. Because of this, we conclude that you have not established that these vehicles were originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards simply because they show a V73 designation in their billing code. Absent a more convincing showing that these vehicles were originally manufactured to comply with U.S. vehicle safety and bumper standards, S541.5(a) requires your client t o inscribe the identifying number on the various covered major parts.

I would also like to point out that your client could not certify compliance with the theft prevention standard by relying on the presence of the GM labels, even if your client were allowed to affix identifying markings. Please note that @541.5(d)(l)(vii i) requires, "The logo or some other unique identifier of the vehicle manufacturer must be placed in the material of the label in a manner such that alteration or removal of the logo visibly alters the appearance of the label." In this case, your client is considered the manufacturer, since it seeks to directly import these Canadian vehicles. The affixed GM labels presumably do not show the logo or some other unique identifier of your client, the direct importer. Accordingly, the GM labels would not sat isfy the requirements of @541.5(d)(1) for those vehicles for which your client is a direct importer.

NHTSA explained at length in the final rule establishing the theft prevention standard why it was necessary to have all required markings inscribed on directly imported vehicles subject to the theft prevention standard. See 50 FR 43166, at 43184-85: Octo ber 24, 1985. The agency also explained why it was necessary that affixed labels have the logo or some other unique identifier of the manufacturer in the labels. Ibid., at 43174-75. I have enclosed a copy of this rule for your information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. George Shifflett Department of Transportation NHTSA Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance NEF 32 400 - 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Shifflett:

I would like to offer the following for your consideration in determining whether the VID numbers must be inscribed on GM vehicles which already bear labels with such numbers affixed by the manufacturer.

Section 541.5 requires inscription in the case of passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with U. S. vehicle safety and bumper standards. Our client only brings in vehicles which do comply with such standards. This is true notwithstanding th e fact that the manufacturers certifying label may have been modified to state that the vehicle complies with Canadian safety, bumper and anti-theft standards. In such case, compliance with U. S. safety and bumper standards is shown by reliance on the 'V 73' designation or some other method. In such case, we then comply with the certification requirements under Section 567.4.

The certification requirement under Section 567.4 is, of course, separate from the inscription requirement under Section 541.5. The inscription requirement is not triggered by a manufacturer's failure to certify compliance, it is triggered by the failure of the vehicle to be manufacturered to comply with U. S. vehicle safety and bumper standards. Since the vehicles in question are, in fact, manufactured to comply with U. S. vehicle safety and bumper standards, albeit not certified as such, it is submitt ed that there is no requirement that such vehicles be inscribed and the manufacturer's label should suffice.

Thank you for your consideration of this submission. Please let me know whether you agree.

Yours truly,

NESPER, McELVEIN, FERBER & DiGIACOMO

By Gabriel J. Ferber

GJF/gw

cc: Steven Kratzke, Esq. Superior Auto Sales, Inc.

ID: nht95-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 21, 1995

FROM: Stephen M. Padula -- Industry Standards & Government Regulations, Uniroyal Goodrich

TO: Walter K. Myers -- NHTSA, Office of the Chief Counsel

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/17/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO STEPHEN M. PADULA (A43; PART 575; REDBOOK 2)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Myers:

As discussed in our conversation of March 20, I would like to know if a UTQGS Treadwear grade of 00 or 000 is permissible. My contention is that it would be because of the following argument.

According to 49 CFR @ 575.104(d)(2)(i), "Each tire shall be graded for treadwear performance with the word "TREADWEAR" followed by a number of two or three digits representing the tire's grade for treadwear, expressed as a percentage of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value . . .". Further, @ 575.104(e)(2)(ix)(F) requires the computation of "the percentage (P) of the NHTSA nominal treadwear value . . . using the following formula":

P = Projected mileage / 30,000 X 100

The computed value of P is then rounded to the nearest lower 20-point increment (after September 1, 1993).

Using a hypothetical example of a tire with projected mileage of 5,000 miles would result in the following value for P:

P = 5,000 / 30,000 X 100 = 16.67

Rounding the above number to the nearest lower 20 point increment would result in a grade of 0. Since 2 or 3 digits are required the grade would become 00 or 000.

I would appreciate your response as soon as possible.

ID: aiam4371

Dear Ms. Tsujishita: Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of th requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 201, *Occupant Protection in Interior Impact*. I have previously responded to your requests for interpretations of the other two standards. I regret the delay in this response.; Your questions concern the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard which provides that 'Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area.' You expressed concern about determining whether several different armrest designs comply with that requirement. Specifically, you provided three examples and asked how the requirement would apply to each example. Your example I11.1 is an armrest that, when viewed in side elevation (i.e., a view in which a person is looking from in front or behind an armrest to determine how the armrest projects from the door surface) has a flat surface. Example I11.2 is an armrest that has a slightly curved surface. Example I11.3 is an armrest with a surface that is steeply angled inward toward the door. Because of the angling of the armrest, it has a sharp projection at its top.; You believe that examples I11.1 and I11.2 comply with the requiremen of S3.5.1(c). You also believe that example I11.3 would not comply because of its sharp projection. However, you expressed concern about what criteria should be used to distinguish example I11.2 from example I11.3.; S3.5.1(c) of Standard No. 201 does not set any radius of curvatur requirements for armrest surfaces. Thus, a manufacturer is not required to provide an armrest with a flat surface. The only requirement is that the armrest provides at least two inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area. The purpose of the requirement is to reduce potential injuries to an occupant by ensuring that the armrest has a minimum surface area that will spread the force resulting from an occupant impacting the armrest in a crash. Thus, for this requirement to have a meaningful effect, an armrest should be designed to ensure that there is at least two inches of contact between the surface of the armrest and the pelvic impact area of an occupant. If your examples I11.1 and I11.2 provide two inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area, they would appear to comply, since they present an essentially flat surface. Based on your drawing, it appears that the steep inwardly sloping angle of the armrest shown in example I11.3 may not contact a minimum of two inches of the pelvic impact area. One method of determining the degree of occupant contact would be to measure the amount of contact between a test dummy and the armrest in a static push test or in a dynamic side impact test. We share your concern that an armrest not have sharp projections which could concentrate potentially harmful forces on an occupant striking the armrest.; Finally, you provide a drawing of an additional armrest. Briefl described, the armrest has a slightly curved surface with a decreasing radius within the pelvic impact area. At the top of the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area there is a small indentation. The agency has previously said, in an interpretation letter of July 1, 1893 to MMC Services, Inc., that bezels and other indentations are not precluded by the standard. However, the area of the indentation will not be measured in determining whether the armrest provides two inches of coverage if the indentation is so deep that it cannot be contacted. Based on your drawing, the indentations shown in your proposed armrest is shallow and would be contactable by an occupant. Thus, the surface area of the indentation would be counted in determining whether the vehicle complied.; Finally, I would point out that S3.5.1(c) is one of three optiona means of compliance that manufacturers may choose. A manufacturer may also meet the requirements of Standard No. 201 by complying with either S3.5.1(a) or S3.5.1(b), in which case it is not necessary to provide two inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 3007yy

Mr. Richard H. Lucki
U.S. Factory Representative
Peugeot
U.S. Technical Research Company
1099 Wall Street West
Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

Dear Mr. Lucki:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked whether a planned gear position display for automatic transmission vehicles would meet the standard's requirement that full gear position information be provided in a single location. As discussed below, the answer to that question is yes.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

As you are aware, on March 26, l99l, this agency published in the Federal Register a final rule amending Standard No. l02. Among the amendments is a new S3.l.4.4 that requires, for all automatic transmission vehicles, that full gear position information, i.e., identification of shift level positions, including the position of the gears in relation to each other, and the gear position selected, be displayed "in view of the driver in a single location."

According to a drawing enclosed with your letter, your planned gear position display would be located on the instrument panel, between the speedometer and tachometer. The current gear position, either P, R, N, D, 3, 2, or l, would be shown in a square, by means of electronic display. The position of the gears in relation to each other, i.e., P R N D 3 2 1, would be marked adjacent to the electronic display. You state that the gear positions in relation to each other will be illuminated when the headlamps are activated.

It is our opinion that your planned design would meet S3.l.4.4's requirement that full gear position information be displayed in a single location. The gear position selected would be shown in the square electronic display. The position of the gears in relation to each other would be marked adjacent to the electronic display. Because the marking of the position of the gears in relation to each other would be adjacent to the electronic display, it is our opinion that all of the information would be considered to be provided in a single location.

I note that this same issue was addressed in the preamble to the March l99l final rule, in connection with a comment submitted by Chrysler. The agency stated the following:

If Chrysler wishes to provide a display of current gear position information on the instrument panel, it is free to do so. Under the amendment, it can either provide full gear position information at that location, e.g., include a "P R N D L" label adjacent to the display, or it can provide a display of current gear position information only on the instrument panel and include a display of full gear position information elsewhere, e.g., on the floor console. 56 FR l2470, March 26, l99l.

Your proposed design is consistent with the first of the two options discussed in that paragraph.

I hope this responds satisfactorily to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:102 d:5/29/9l

ID: nht91-4.9

DATE: May 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Richard H. Lucki -- U.S. Factory Representative, Peugeot, U.S. Technical Research Company

TITLE: None

TEXT:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked whether a planned gear position display for automatic vehicles would meet the standard's requirement that full gear position information be provided in a single location. As discussed below, the answer to that question is yes.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in you letter.

As you are aware, on March 26, 1991, this agency published in the Federal Register a final rule amending Standard No. 102. Among the amendments is a new S3.1.4.4 that requires, for all automatic transmission vehicles, that full gear position information, i.e., identification of shift level positions, including the position of the gears in relation to each other, and the gear position selected, be displayed "in view of the driver in a single location."

According to a drawing enclosed with your letter, your planned gear position display would be located on the instrument panel, between the speedometer and tachometer. The current gear position, either P, R, N, D, 3, 2, or 1, would be shown in a square, by means of electronic display. The position of the gears in relation to each other, i.e., P R N D 3 2 1, would be marked adjacent to the electronic display. You state that the gear positions in relation to each other will be illuminated when the headlamps are activated.

It is our opinion that your planned design would meet S3.1.4.4's requirement that full gear position information be displayed in a single location. The gear position selected would be shown in the square electronic display. The position of the gears in relation to each other would be marked adjacent to the electronic display. Because the marking of the position of the gears in relation to each other would be adjacent to the electronic display, it is our opinion that all of the information would be considered to be provided in a single location.

I note that this same issue was addressed in the preamble to the March 1991 final rule, in connection with a comment submitted by Chrysler. The agency stated the following: If Chrysler wishes to provide a display of current gear position information on the instrument panel, it is free to do so. Under the amendment, it can either provide full gear position information at that location, e.g., include a "P R N D L" label adjacent to the display, or it can provide a display of current gear position information only on the instrument panel and include a display of full gear position information elsewhere, e.g., on the floor console. 56 FR 12470, March 26, 1991.

Your proposed design is consistent with the first of the two options discussed in that paragraph.

I hope this responds satisfactorily to your concerns. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: aiam1873

Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whethe a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of this office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:; >>>(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seve feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle,; (b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shal be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent.<<<; It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code als provides in S 46.1-267:; >>>No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equippe with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.<<<; As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392*d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to 'preempt' the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.; The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 an Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265 regulate the same 'aspect of performance.' If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:; >>>Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. An ambulanc is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a 'motor vehicle' under Virginia Code 46.1- 265.; Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certai specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.; The configuration and color of the lights required by the two law differ.<<<; Consequently, Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the exten that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code S 46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia *or* Federal standards, is incorrect.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1872

Dear Mr. Crampton: This is in response to your letter of March 21, 1975 inquiring whethe a State may require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; In your phone conversation of March 28 with Mr. Robert Donin of thi office you indicated that the vehicle in question was an ambulance outfitted with a raised roof designed to enable medical personnel to stand inside. The raised top increases the height of the vehicle to 9 feet. You stated that although you could not identify the specific State statute involved, it was your understanding that Virginia requires clearance lights near the top of all vehicles over 7 feet in height. The law to which you apparently were referring is Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265. A copy is enclosed. It states in part:; >>>(a) All motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers exceeding seve feet in height or in width or the widest portion of which extends four inches beyond the front fender extremes shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand front top corners of such vehicle, each of which lamps shall be capable of projecting an amber light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the front of such vehicle, and shall be equipped with lamps mounted at the extreme right- and left-hand rear top corners of such vehicle, each of which lights shall be capable of projecting a red light visible in clear weather for a distance of at least five hundred feet to the rear of such vehicle,***; (b) In addition to the lamps required herein, each such vehicle shal be equipped with amber reflectors located on the side thereof, at or near the front. Red reflectors shall be used on the rear of each such vehicle. Such reflectors shall be securely fastened to the vehicle not less than twenty-four inches and not more than sixty inches from the ground, provided that in the case of a vehicle which is less than twenty-four inches in height such reflectors shall be securely fastened thereto at the highest point the structure of the vehicle will permit. The reflectors required therein shall be of a type that have been approved by the Superintendent. ***<<<; It is important to note that the Virginia Motor Vehicle Code als provides in S 46.1-267; >>>*** No motor vehicle shall be operated on any highway which is equippe with any lighting device other than lamps required or permitted in this article or required or approved by the Superintendent or required by the Federal Department of Transportation.<<<; As you may know, section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Moto Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect safety standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical. By virtue of this provision, the Federal government is said to 'preempt' the field of regulation with respect to any aspect of performance for which there is a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.; The key question, therefore, is whether Federal Standard No. 108 an Virginia Motor Vehicle Code S 46.1-265 regulate the same 'aspect of performance.' If so, Virginia may not apply its requirement unless the Federal and Virginia requirements are identical. From a comparison of the two laws, it is evident that both address the same aspect of performance and that they are not identical:; >>>*Both the Federal and Virginia laws apply to ambulances. A ambulance is a multipurpose passenger vehicle, under Federal Standard No. 108 and a 'motor vehicle' under Virginia Code 46.1-265.; *Both laws require that the vehicle be equipped with lights at certai specified locations to facilitate recognition of its dimensions.; *The configuration and color of the lights required by the two law differ.<<<; Consequently Federal Standard No. 108 is preemptive, and to the exten that they differ from the Federal requirements the State clearance lamp and reflector requirements quoted are void. The language of Virginia Code S46.1-267, to the effect that lighting devices may conform to Virginia *or* Federal standards, is incorrect.; Sincerely, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3080

Dear Mr. Lynch: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of m office when you telephoned on June 19 with regard to your intention to establish a business for the manufacture of 53.6 gallon replacement gasoline tanks and for the installation of these tanks in used Cadillac limousines. You specifically asked what Federal law is applicable to your proposed activities and whether any Federal law establishes a maximum allowable capacity for gasoline tanks.; The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amende (the Act) authorized the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, *Fuel System Integrity*, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard applicable to passenger cars and other vehicles which requires that fuel spillage occurring during and after any crash of the vehicle into a fixed or moving barrier not exceed established limits. As explained below, this standard indirectly affects both the installation and manufacture of replacement gasoline tanks.; Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits certain entities and person from knowingly removing, disconnecting, or reducing the performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. Specifically, the section provides:; >>>No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repai business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .<<<; A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liabl for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).; If a person or entity listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) removes th original gasoline tank from a used vehicle and installs a replacement tank, the section is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicles structure. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be more readily pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.; Consequently, as a manufacturer of replacement gasoline tanks, yo could be liable for a penalty under section 108(a)(2)(A) if you replace the gasoline tank in a used Cadillac limousine with one or your tanks, knowing that the performance of the replacement tank as installed would be inferior to that of the original tank.; Please note that should you decide to install your tanks in ne vehicles prior the their first sale for purposes other than resale, you would also be required to certify that the vehicle as altered still complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Should these provisions become relevant to your business, I would be happy to provide further information.; Sections 151-155 of the Act, which are enclosed, would also apply t your activities as a manufacturer of gasoline tanks. These sections provide that if the agency or you find that your tanks contain a safety-related defect, you would be required to notify purchasers of the hazard and to remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.; I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federal la discussed above, there may be state products liability law applicable to your proposed activities. As a manufacturer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. As an installer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.; Finally, with respect to your inquiry about maximum allowable capacit for gasoline tanks, neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration nor the Department of Transportation as a whole has established such a limit.; I hope that you will find this response helpful. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr H. Nakaya Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road - Suite 462 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This is in response to your letter of July 8 1983 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S4.2 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps establishes a minimum distance of 4 inches from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp providing the lower beam. You believe that it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp and you have asked whether you may substitute the edge of the reflector (as shown on your drawing) to measure the dimension covered by S4.2 of J588e.

The point depicted on your drawing appears to be the inner edge of the reflector, rather than the extreme edge; nevertheless, the "reflector edge" you have indicated is the approximate location of a retaining ring on a fully sealed headlamp, and is therefore acceptable as a measuring point under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 8, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington; D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda requests interpretation regarding the amendment to FMVSS No.108 which allows the use of semi-sealed headlamps (Docket No. 81-11; Notice 3, 48 F.R. 24690).

Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e states that, "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." However, it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp. We, therefore, believe that it is appropriate to use the edge of the reflector, instead of the inside diameter of the retaining ring, to measure the dimension described in Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e (See attached sketch).

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter as soon as possible.

Very truly yours, H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc: Att.

FIGURE 1: SEMI-SEALED HEADLAMP (PLAN VIEW SECTION) GRAPH INSERTED HERE REFLECTOR EDGE

ID: nht87-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Jack Quinn

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack Quinn Ms. Terri Southwick Arnold & Porter 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Quinn and Ms. Southwick:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. We regret the delay in our response. You described an automatic transmission and asked whether the transmission complies with Standard No. 102. Also, you asked several specific questions about the standard. Your questions are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You provided the following description of the automatic transmission at issue:

. . . downshift occurs automatically from "drive" to "second" at 29 mph and from "second" to "first" gear at 13 mph. Forced manual downshift is possible at and below 25 mph (from "second" to " first"). Thus, at speeds between 13 and 29 mph, there is at l east one forward drive position ("first") manually available which provides a greater degree of engine braking than does the gear then automatically in use ("second"). At 13 mph and below, the transmission is automatically in a gear ("first") that provid es greater engine braking than would the highest speed transmission ratio if that position ("drive") were available at such low speeds. Of course, in the lowest gear, there is no lower gear available which would provide greater engine braking effect.

In your first question, you asked whether the described transmission complies with Standard No. 102. Your letter indicates that your concern is limited to section S3.1.2 of the standard.

Section S3.1.2 provide:

S3.1.2 Transmission braking effect. In vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 miles p er hour.

It should be noted that Standard No. 102 applies to motor vehicles and not to transmissions per se. Thus, compliance with the standard is determined with respect to the vehicle.

I would also note that, as we have stated in past interpretations, the phrase "at vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour" is inclusive. Thus, it means at all speeds below 25 mph, and not at a speed.

One issue raised by your design is whether there must be at least two gears available at some or all speeds below 25 mph. for vehicles with two or more forward transmission gear ratios. The answer to this question is no. It is our interpretation that the standard requires that one forward drive position must provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest gear ratio and that it must provide that degree of engine braking at all speeds below 25 mph. The standard does not require that the highe st (or other higher) ratio be available at some or all speeds below 25 mph.

A second issue is whether the requirement for greater braking effect at vehicle speeds below 25 mph must be met by one (and only one) forward drive shift lever position or whether more than one position providing greater braking effect may be utilized. I t is our opinion that where a manufacturer chooses to provide more than one forward transmission gear position, each of which provides a greater degree of engine braking than the highest gear ratio, all such positions may be counted toward meeting this r equirement.

A third issue is whether the requirements of section S3.1.2 can be met by automatic downshifting (to a gear ratio that provides a greater degree of engine braking) or whether manual downshifting must be available. In considering this issue, one question is whether more than one forward drive shift lever position is required. First, it is our opinion that Standard No. 102 does not require more than one forward drive shift lever position. Section S3.1.2's requirement that "one forward drive position" must provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 mph can be met by a vehicle with only one forward drive position if that position always provides such engine braking at the specified speeds . This would, of course, presuppose automatic downshifting . The requirements of section S3.1.2 can be met by automatic downshifting so long as such downshifting always takes place at a speed no lower than 25 mph. If automatic downshifting took place at a speed below 25 mph and manual downshifting has not possible, the requirement would not be met for some speeds below 25 mph.

With this background in mind, I will address the transmission described above with respect to section S3.1.2. The "highest speed transmission ratio" of the vehicle is "drive." We note that your letter does not indicate whether "second" gear provides a gr eater degree of engine braking than "drive." However, your letter does state that "first" gear provides a greater degree of engine braking than "drive" and that the vehicle will either automatically be in first gear, or can manually be downshifted to fir st gear, for all speeds at and below 25 mph. Thus, one forward drive position (either "first" by virtue of manual downshifting or the standard position by virtue of automatic downshifting) would provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio ("drive") at all vehicle speeds below 25 mph.

Your second question is whether the availability of forced, manual downshifting above 25 mph is relevant to compliance with Standard No. 102. Such availability could be relevant, depending on the design. As indicated above, for example. if automatic down shifting took place at a speed below 25 mph, it would be necessary to provide manual downshifting at or above 25 mph in order to ensure that the requirements of section 53.1.2 be met for all speeds below 25 mph.

The answer to your third question, whether the standard can be satisfied by virtue of automatic shifting of gears, is provided above. Similarly, the answer to your fourth question, whether more than one drive position can be counted toward meeting the re quirement for greater engine braking, is also provided above.

Your fifth question is how compliance is measured, since engine braking is not the same as net vehicle braking. We understand your use of the term "net vehicle braking" to refer to all vehicle braking forces other than those attributable to application o f the service and emergency brakes. These vehicle braking forces include engine braking and various parasitic drags, such as tire rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. You also asked what guidance the agency has available for ensuring compliance. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. This process requires each manufacturer to exerci se due care in conducting the mathematical calculations, computer simulations or testing that form the basis for that certification. With respect to your specific question, manufacturers can use any or all of these techniques to analyze the engine brakin g capability of their vehicles. Such analysis can, among other things, separate out various other effects on braking, such as aerodynamic drag and tire rolling resistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Jones, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street. S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 (49 C.F.R. S 571.102)

Dear Ms. Jones:

On behalf of a manufacturer of transmissions for use in buses, we hereby request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 102, paragraph S3. 1.2 of which states that:

In vehicles having more than one forward transmission gear ratio, one forward drive position shall provide a greater degree of engine braking than the highest speed transmission ratio at vehicle speeds below 25 miles per hour.

In the transmission at issue, downshift occurs automatically from "drive" to "second" at 29 m.p.h. and from "second" to "first" gear at 13 m.p.h. Forced manual downshift is possible at and below 25 m.p.h. (from "second" to "first"). Thus, at speeds betwe en 13 and 29 m.p.h. , there is at least one forward drive position ("first") manually available which provides a greater degree of engine braking than does the gear then automatically in use ("second" ). At 13 m.p.h. and below, the transmission is automa tically in a gear ("first") that provides greater engine braking than would the highest speed transmission ratio if that position ("drive" ) were available at such low speeds. Of course, in the lowest gear, there is no lower gear available which would pr ovide greater engine braking effect.

Erika Jones, Esquire September 29, 1986 Page 2

Our questions are:

1. Does the system described comply with Standard 102?

2. Is the availability of forced, manual down- shifting above 25 m.p.h. relevant to compliance with Standard 102?

3. Is the standard satisfied by virtue of the automatic shifting of gears as described or does it require the availability under any circumstances of forced, manual downshifting of gears at or below 25 m.p.h.?

Would a transmission that shifts automatically from "drive" to "second" at 29 m.p.h. (and from "second" to "first" at 13 m.p.h.) comply?

If not, and manual down-shifting to a gear with greater engine braking effect must be available, at what speed must such manual (or automatic) downshifting be available -- at 25 m.p.h., or at any speed "below" 25 m.p.h., e.g.,24m.p.h.?

4. Must the requirement of greater engine braking effect be fulfilled by one (and only one ) forward drive position, or may two drive positions (providing greater engine braking effect than the "drive" position) be utilized?

5. Since engine braking is not the same as net vehicle braking, how is compliance to be measured? What guidance does the agency have available for ensuring compliance?

Thank you for considering these questions and providing an opinion.

Sincerely,

Jack Quinn Terri Southwick