ID: 86-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/27/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Toshio Maeda

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1986, requesting an interpretation of the comfort and convenience requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Your specific question is whether the retraction requirements of S7.4.5 of the standard apply only to the front outboard seating positions. As explained below, the answer is yes.

The April 12, 1985 notice proposed changes to the comfort and convenience requirements in response to petitions for reconsideration. In the case of the retraction requirements, the proposed language of S7.4.5 said that the requirement would only apply to a safety belt system installed at the "front outboard designated seating position." In the November 6, 1985 final rule adopting the retraction requirement, the agency dropped the reference to the "front outboard seating position." However, S7.4.5 still referred to conducting a compliance test on a test dummy which has been positioned "in accordance with S10." S10, in turn, references the test dummy positioning requirements of S8.1.11. S8.1.11.1 and S8.1.11.2 provide for positioning test dummies in the front outboard seating positions. Thus, the minor change in the language of the requirements did not change the applicability of the requirement. However, to eliminate any possible ambiguity about the application of the retraction requirement, the agency is planning to amend S7.4.5 to provide explicitly that it only applies to the front outboard designated seating positions.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel April 11, 1986 Ref : W-159-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION 49 CFR Part 571 Docket No. 74-14; Notice 42 Seat Belt Comfort and Convenience

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc. herewith requests interpretation of a somewhat ambiguous phrase in the NHTSA's final rule on the performance requirements for seat belt assemblies (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208).

S571. 208. S7.4.5, Retraction, reads, in part, ". . .the torso and lap belt webbing of any of those seat belt systems shall automatically retract when the adjacent vehicle door is in the open position, or when the seat belt latchplate is released, to a stowed position." (Emphasis added)

Question:

In the case of a 2-door vehicle, what would be considered the "adjacent" door for either the rear outboard seat or the rear center seat? Or is the retraction performance requirement intended to be applicable to rear seating positions at all?

Since the effective date for this requirement is already less than six months away, any urgency with which you can address our concern is highly appreciated.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 466-5284.

Thank you very much. Again, we would be grateful for a prompt response.

Respectfully submitted,

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

TM:TH:mab cc) Mr. Steve Oesch, Chief Counsel Office, NHTSA

ID: 86-3.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Hutton, Jr. -- Curtis, Bamburg and Crosse

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Robert A. Hutton, Hr., Esq. Curtis, Bamburg & Crossen Attorneys at Law 230 South Bemiston St. Louis, MO 63105

Dear Mr. Hutton:

This responds to your letter asking about inertial-locking seatbelts and seatbacks. We apologize for the delay in our response. You stated that your firm represents a woman who was injured in a 1983 Ford Escort GT. According to your letter, while braking to exit a highway, the driver's seatback was thrown forward, not locking, causing your client to lose control of the car and crash into a guardrail. You asked for information about inertial-lock mechanisms on automobiles, particularly for seat backs and belts in that car, and references to government safety standards. You specifically asked whether there was a standard for the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The of our standards are revelant to inertial-lock mechanisms.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies requirements for inertial-locking safety belts. Section S4.3(j) specifies the following:

(j) Emergency-locking retractor. An emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph S5.2(j)--

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g. . . .

Thus, for safety belts, there is a specific requirement for the maximum distance the webbing may extend before locking under load.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR S571.207), specifies requirements for restraining devices for hinged or folding seats and seat backs. See section S4.3. The standard requires that such seats be equipped with self-locking restraining devices, and specifies both static force and acceleration performance requirements which the restraining devices must meet once engaged. However, the standard does not specify either the load at which an inertial-locking seatback must lock or the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load.

In response to your request for information that relates to the particular car involved in your client's accident, He have enclosed a computer printout listing relevant vehicle owner reports which allege problems similar to that identified by your letter.

I hope this information is helpful. There is no fee for the information.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 5, 1985

Department of Transportation Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Re: Inertial-locking Seatbelts and Seatbacks.

Dear Sir or Madam:

This firm represents a woman who was injured in a 1983 Ford Escort GT. The car is equipped with inertial-locking seatbelts and seatbacks on the front seats. While braking to exit a highway, the driver's seatback was thrown forward -- it did not lock -- causing my client to lose control of the car and crashing into a guardrail.

I an interested i any information you may have concerning inertial-lock mechanisms on automobiles, and particularly seatbacks and belts for that particular car. Any reference to government safety standards, including any standard for the maximum distance the seatback can travel before locking under load would be extremely helpful.

If there is any fee involved in compiling this information, please advise.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Hutton, Jr.

RAH/h

ID: 86-3.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Terry W. Wagar

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Terry W. Wagar Technical Services Bureau Division of Vehicle Safety Services Department of Motor Vehicles State of New York Albany, NY 12228 Dear Mr. Wagar:

This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1985, with reference to the "Pulse" and "Litestar" motor vehicles. You have asked several questions regarding the registration category and highway safety records of these vehicles. I hope the following information will be helpful.

There are no Federal categories for vehicle registration. Each State is free to define vehicles as it wishes for registration purposes. The State definition need not conform to the Federal categorization assigned for purposes of the safety standards. However, regardless of how a State defines a vehicle, under the preemption clause of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392(d)) a State may not require compliance of that vehicle with a State standard that differs from a Federal safety standard covering the same aspect of conformance. Such a State standard must be identical with the Federal one. For example, a State could require a horn as a prerequisite to registration since there is no corresponding Federal requirement, but it could not require a motorcycle to be equipped with two headlamps, since Federal Standard No. 108 allows a manufacturer a choice of one or two headlamps.

With reference to the Litestar and Pulse vehicles, we understand that both vehicles have small outrigger wheels, which support the vehicles at rest. For purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, a "motorcycle" is a motor vehicle that is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. If the outrigger wheels are used only to provide stabilization in turns while the vehicle is in motion, then we would view the vehicle as a "motorcycle' since it is designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground. However, if this type of vehicle is designed to travel on all four wheels, or capable of it according to outrigger adjustment, the vehicle would not be a motorcycle, but would be a "passenger car" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. (See definition of "motorcycle" at 49 CFR Sec. 571.3(b)). We have not formally investigated these vehicles for compliance, nor do we have any information regarding their highway safety records.

You also asked whether the "Litestar" had been brought to our attention previously, The answer is yes, James Bede, the apparent originator of this type of vehicle, brought one to the headquarters of the Department some years ago and obtained our informal concurrence that it could be classified as a "motorcycle."

I hope that this is of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

December 27, 1985

Ms. Erika C. Jones Chief Council NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

The subject of my inquiry is a vehicle recognized by the trade names "Pulse" or "Litestar". Our concerns are:

1. How to register; Motorcycle or Motor Vehicle?

2. What if any are the highway safety records of this vehicle?

3. What is the opinion of the NHTSA regarding registration category and compliance with federal safety standards?

I understand that the "Litestar" has been brought to the attention of the Chief Council in the past. Is this correct?

I have enclosed some information on both the "Pulse" and "Litestar" for your reference.

Thank you for any assistance you may give us.

Sincerely, Terry W. Wagar Technical Services Bureau

TWW:nl Encs.

ID: 86-3.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/11/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen F. Brauninger

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Allen F. Brauninger Esq. Office of the General Counsel U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Washington, D.C. 20207

Dear Mr. Brauninger:

Thank you for your letter of March 20, 1986, concerning whether a nylon tow strap would be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment as defined by section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. As discussed below, we have determined that a nylon tow strap is an item of motor vehicle equipment.

Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act defines, in part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle . . . (Emphasis added.)

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an "accessory" the agency has looked at the following two factors, whether the item has no ostensible purpose other than use with a motor vehicle and whether it is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. On first impression, it would seem that the nylon tow strap in question could have purposes, such as work with agricultural equipment, which do not involve motor vehicles covered by the Vehicle Safety Act. However, the advertising and promotional literature and articles you have provided show that the strap is intended to be used by motorists to pull one motor vehicle with another motor vehicle. The literature consistently refers to the use of the strap to pull a stuck motor vehicle out of mud, snow, and sand. Likewise, the illustrations in the advertisements and promotion literature show the straps being used to pull motor vehicles.

The material you enclosed also makes clear that the nylon tow straps are being offered to vehicle owners for use with conventional passenger cars and off-road, utility-type vehicles. Given those considerations, we would consider the nylon tow straps in question to be vehicle accessories and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment covered by the Vehicle Safety Act.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Stephen Oesch, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation -- Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

As you know, section 3 (a) (1) (C) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 2052 (a) (1) (C) ) excludes "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by section 102 (4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S 1391 (4)) from those "consumer products" which are subject to the authority of this agency.

I am writing to request your assistance in determining whether a nylon tow strap promoted for use in extricating a vehicle stuck in mud or snow is an item of "motor vehicle equipment." As you repeated during our telephone conversation on March 19, 1986, I am enclosing copies of advertising and promotional materials for the product in question, and two articles which describe the product and its use.

After you have had an opportunity to examine these materials, I would like to discuss them with you.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

Allen F. Brauninger Attorney

Enclosure

ID: 77-1.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/24/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bertolini Engineering Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 7, 1977, letter asking whether your proposed remanufacture of 573 trailer chassis would constitute the manufacture of new chassis which would be required to conform to Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, or any other applicable regulation.

According to the remanufacture proposal you describe, Seatrain Lines will be the user of the chassis both before and after the remanufacture, although it will no longer own any of them. Fruehauf Corporation will become the owner of all of the chassis, whereas it currently owns none.

The NHTSA regulations pertaining to the remanufacture of chassis are found in 49 CFR Part 571.7. In that regulation the agency states that the chassis must be owned or leased by the same entity both before and after remanufacture. Since Seatrain is the current user of the vehicles (as owner and lessee) and will continue to be the user after remanufacture (as a lessee), it appears that the remanufactured vehicle will not be one that requires certification with motor vehicle safety standards.

It should be pointed out that if the transaction you describe for achieving remanufacture becomes a large-scale practice in the trailer industry, the agency will be compelled to reconsider the meaning of "manufacture" under its regulations.

SINCERELY,

BERTOLINI ENGINEERING CO., INC.

March 7, 1977

Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

ATTN: Karen Dyson

Pursuant to our telephone conversation of March 4, 1977, I would appreciate an opinion on the following proposed remanufacture scheduled for immediate production.

The facts are as follows: Seatrain Lines is a container steamship operator who operates many thousands of chassis in the United States. They have in service now 573 chassis which they would like to have remanufactured into updated pieces of equipment by Bertolini Engineering Company, Inc. The reason for this move is that they have found that the old frames are not worthwhile maintaining any longer because of their inability to stand the gaff of their day to day operations.

Furthermore, these chassis will not meet Association of American Railroads Piggyback Regulations which are due to become effective in January 1985. However, the running gear on these chassis is sound and shows very little wear and usage, and will be retained in the remanufactured vehicle. Of these 573 chassis, Seatrain is the owner of 300, which they had purchased on a conditional sales contract. The remaining 273 are owned by Thriftway Leasing Company who is leasing the equipment to Seatrain. Seatrain would like all 573 chassis leased back to them by Thriftway Leasing Company.

Thriftway Leasing Company in turn has come to Fruehauf Corporation for financial assistance to finance the package. Fruehauf Corporation therefore proposes to buy all 573 chassis, turn them over to Bertolini Engineering Company for remanufacture, and then lease them back to Thriftway who in turn will sublease them to Seatrain.

It should be pointed out that Seatrain will be the user before and after the remanufacture and the Fruehauf Corporation will be the owner before and after remanufacture.

Also, the Vehicle Identification Number will be carried through after remanufacture so as to maintain its original identity.

This procedure, we feel, is totally in accord with the requirements of Docket No. 75-9, Notice of the Federal Register, July 1, 1976 and we therefore request your concurrence that these chassis will not be considered newly manufactured and will not have to be certified as being in compliance with MVSS 121 or other applicable safety standards established subsequent to their original date of manufacture.

Please let me have your opinion on this as soon as possible inasmuch as we are ready to go into production on these units and are merely awaiting your interpretation.

William A. Bertolini President

ID: 77-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Townsend & Townsend Attorneys at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 9, 1977, letter in which you ask how the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration determines whether a school bus must comply with the new school bus safety standards.

On April 1, 1977, several new standards will become effective relating to the construction of school buses: Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection; Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength; and Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Further, several old standards have been amended to provide special requirements for school buses. These amendments also become effective on April 1.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563), as amended (Pub. L. 93-492), prohibits the manufacture for sale, sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect that does not conform to the standard. This means that any school bus manufactured on or after April 1, 1977, must comply with the school bus safety standards, regardless of the date on which the bus is actually sold or introduced into interstate commerce.

For vehicles that you complete by mounting a body on a new chassis, you are permitted to choose as the date of manufacture either the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle (as defined in Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages), the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. Only those standards in effect on the date chosen to represent the date of manufacture would be applicable to the vehicle, irrespective of the date upon which the vehicle is sold to the ultimate consumer.

I am enclosing copies of the new school bus safety standards and Part 568 for your information.

SINCERELY,

February 9, 1977

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Re: School Bus Safety Standards

We represent an automobile dealership which has heretofore entered into a contract for the purchase of several school buses.

Essentially, the chassis portion of the school bus is manufactured by General Motors and the bodies are then placed upon the chassis by a third party.

Our client recently received information from General Motors regarding new school bus safety regulations which will become effective on April 1, 1977 under the Motor Vehicle and School Bus Safety Amendments of 1974. Our dealer understands that there will be several modifications necessary to future school buses including locking devices for brake systems and such things as guards for gas tanks. Of course, the cost of these modifications may be great (Illegible Word) circumstances.

With this in mind, our client is particularly interested in your interpretation of when a school bus is sold or introduced into interstate commerce pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations Section 571.3. Specifically, if the school bus was ordered and the chassis manufactured prior to the effective date of these changes, would this constitute a sale or do you contemplate sale to mean the date that the final bus is sold to the ultimate consumer? Secondly, if the school bus was completed pursuant to prior specifications before the effective date of the new standards, but is sold to the ultimate consumer after the date of the effective standards, must the modifications be incorporated in the final unit?

We would also appreciate your advise as to the effective date of these new standards for school buses.

We are located some distance from a library containing the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register and thus solicit your help in attempting to answer these questions we have posed.

Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND, ATTORNEYS

Robert N. Townsend

ID: 77-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: American Seating Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking for an interpretation of the requirements for knee contact area in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, which state that, when impacted, "the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 600 pounds and the contact area on the knee form surface shall not be less than 3 square inches." You ask whether this requirement can be interpreted as meaning that, when impacted, the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 200 pounds per square inch rather than 600 pounds over 3 square inches.

The 600 pound maximum force and the 3 square inch minimum contact area are two distinct requirements. The first specifies an upper bound on the load that will be applied to the upper leg while the latter specifies a lower bound on the knee area over which an impact load must be distributed. To combine the two requirements, as you suggest, tends to relax the contact area requirement for a load which is less than 600 pounds. Such an interpretation would not ensure the level of safety the agency demands for knee contact area. The suggested combination of the two requirements may not provide an adequate distribution of forces over the knee. Accordingly, the agency declines to accept the suggested interpretation of the standard.

SINCERELY,

March 24, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Att: Chief Counsel, Frank A. Berndt

Reference is made to Federal Standard 222, paragraph S5.3.2.2, "When any part on the rear surface of that part of a seat back or restraining barrier within any zone specified S5.3.2.1 is impacted from any direction at 16 feet per second by the knee form specified in S6.7, the resisting force of the impacted material shall not exceed 600 pounds and the contact area on the knee form surface shall not be less than 3 square inches".

We request an interpretation of the requirement for the knee form contact area. The knee recess area of the seat back is the most vulnerable part of the seat not only to vandalism but to hard use by the passenger. This is the area where feet are placed on the back and soles of shoes scuff and damage softer material. Also objects such as briefcases and lunchboxes add to the damage in this area. In fact, in city and inter-city buses this area is normally protected by heavy plastic or stainless steel panels. In the endeavor to provide a more practical surface than the soft vinyl we have been successful in adopting a thin plastic back panel. However, in some areas of the seat back, the resisting force, at 16 feet per second, is only 300 pounds and proportionately the contact area caused by the knee form is about 2 - 2 1/2 square inches.

We question whether the 3 square inches applies to the resisting force of the 600 pound magnitude or if it must extend to the lesser force. If we consider the distribution of the 600 pound force over the 3 square inch area, we are applying 200 pounds per square inch. When we measure the distribution of forces in this manner we meet the 200 pound maximum per square inch.

Under separate cover we are sending you copies of the actual contact areas indicated by the paint imprint. Because your interpretation will have a direct bearing on the construction of the seat as well as performance and economy of maintenance, we would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience.

Chester J. Barecki Vice President - Sales Engineering Transportation Products Division

[Attachments Omitted]

CC: T. HOYT; E. HENEVELD; J. OTT; T. CAMP

ID: 77-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/22/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. R. W. Straub - Governor of Oregon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

Specifically, we understand that ORS 483.404 was amended in June 1977 to require that headlamps on motor vehicles registered in Oregon meet the standards established for such under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 or

". . . the United Nations Agreement concerning the Adoption of Approval and Reciprocal Recognition of Approval for Motor Vehicle Equipment and Parts; done at Geneva on 20 March 1958, as amended and adopted by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA Standard 106.2) or both."

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

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

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

The United Nations Agreement, and this Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, permits the use of motor vehicle headlamps that are not of sealed beam construction and whose candlepower output may exceed 75,000. Further, they do not require that the headlamps be mechanically aimable. Standard No. 108, on the other hand, requires that headlamps a passenger vehicles be of sealed beam construction, imposes a limit of 75,000 candlepower on all but one type of headlamp, and specifies that all headlamps be mechanically aimable. Thus, the United Nations Agreement, and that Agreement as amended by the Canadian Standards Association, do not specify requirements for headlamps that are identical to those of Standard No. 108. This means that this part of the amendment to ORS 483.404 is, in our opinion, preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), and of no legal effect.

As a consequence, it is our conclusion that any person in Oregon manufacturing for sale, selling, offering for sale, introducing or delivering for introduction in interstate commerce, or importing into the United States through the State of Oregon any lighting equipment that does not conform to Standard No. 108, in reliance upon ORS 483.404, could be subject to civil penalties for apparent violations of 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A) in an amount up to $ 800,000 (15 U.S.C. 1398(a)), and to a restraining order (15 U.S.C. 1399(a)). There is no preemption, however, of your State's right to specify requirements for lighting equipment not currently included in Standard No. 108 (e.g. foglamps).

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

We would appreciate the views of the State of Oregon on this subject. Questions on it may be referred to the Chief Counsel of this agency, Joseph J. Levin, Jr. The agency's position on this matter was presented previously in a letter dated May 27, 1977, from Mr. Levin to the Administrator of the Oregon Senate Transportation Committee. The Committee, however, chose to disregard our opinion, when it considered Oregon House Bill 2998 and recommended its passage.

ID: 1984-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Mayer D. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG Porschestrasse 42 Stuttgart-Zuffenheusen Germany

Dear Mr. Mayer:

Your letter of June 5, 1984, to Mr. Jettner was forwarded to my office for reply. You asked whether Porsche may use a trilingual marking on glass-plastic glazing. As explained below, the answer is yes.

Section 5.1.2.5(b) of Standard No. 205 requires manufacturers of glass-plastic glazing to permanently and indelibly mark the lower center of such glazing with the words, "Glass Plastic Material -See Owner's Manual For Care Instructions". The letter must be not less than 3/16 inch nor more than 1/4 inch high. You ask whether the optional marking permitted may be trilingual. As long as the English marking conforms to the requirements of section 5.l.2.5(b), there is no prohibition in the standard to using a trilingual warning.

I note that the pictures you enclosed with your letter appear to show a decal with the language required to meet the standard. As discussed in the preamble to the glass-plastic glazing final rule, the agency added section 5.1.2.5(b) of the standard to allow manufacturers to etch or otherwise permanently and indelibly mark the message on the glazing. Please note that the use of a plastic decal which could be removed or become illegible would not be deemed "permanent and indelible" by the agency.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Edward Jettber Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW. Washington, D.C. 20590 USA

ESV-My-re Weissach, June 5, 1984

Request for Clarification

Dear Mr. Jettner:

In February 1984 (Federal Register Vol. 49; No. 37; Pages 6732/6735 of February 23, 1984) Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials, was amended to allow the use of glass-plastic glazing as windshields and windows in motor vehicles.

In relation with this amendment permission was given to affix a label on the window in order to give vehicle owner's cleaning instructions, S 5.1.2.5(b).

The text must be in letters not less than 3/16 inch nor more than 1/4 inch high, with the following words:

"GLASS PLASTIC MATERIAL - SEE OWNER'S MANUAL FOR CARE INSTRUCTIONS."

We are now asking for permission to add the corresponding cleaning instructions in German and French to this label.

The trilingual label would assure that the content of the instruction will be understood by the customers in most of the countries our vehicles are sold to, without the disadvantage of using different labels in production.

A uniform label would also prevent errors in the assignment of the labels to the different countries.

For better understanding we enclosed pictures showing the requested labels on our vehicles '911' and '928'.

Altogether, the dimensions of the label are small enough that the label can be affixed on the area underneath the windshield wipers (windshield wipers in resting position).

An early favorable answer of our request would be greatly appreciated as we intent to use the new windshields, which have a layer of polyurethan on the inner surface, on our new vehicles (1985).

We thank you in advance for your kindness and remain,

Sincerely yours,

Dr.Ing.h.c.F. Porsche AG -Technical Administration-Mayer Enclosure

"INSERT"

"INSERT"

ID: nht79-2.31

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Brooks - H. O. R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 11 1979

NOA-30

Honorable Jack Brooks House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your note we received on August 29 enclosing correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Don Bush. Mr. Bush requests information concerning passive seat belts on a 1977 Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, he was told by the Society of Automotive Engineers that there are currently no standards for this type of restraint system.

The information given Mr. Bush by the Society of Automotive Engineers was incorrect. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies requirements for restraint systems in passenger cars and other vehicles (49 CFR 571.208). For 1977-model passenger cars manufacturers had three options: (1) total passive protection (protection by means that require no action by vehicle occupants); (2) head-on passive protection; (3) the installation of combination lap and shoulder belts for front, outboard seating positions and lap belts for center and rear seating positions.

Volkswagen apparently certified its 1977-model deluxe Rabbit under the second option of the standard. This option requires the vehicle to meet specified injury criteria in a perpendicular barrier crash test, and to either meet lateral and rollover criteria in dynamic impact tests by automatic means or to install lap belts at front, outboard seating positions. Volkswagen used a single, diagonal passive belt to comply with the automatic frontal crash protection requirement of the second option. Additionally, paragraph S4.5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208 allows a passive belt to be used in lieu of any other belt required by any option of the standard. Therefore, Volkswagen's single, diagonal passive belt also qualifies as a lap belt for purposes of complying with the lateral and rollover requirements of the second option.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 208 for Mr. Bush's information. Please have him contact Hugh Oates of my office if he has any questions after reviewing the standard (202-426-2992). Mr. Bush might also note that General Motors voluntarily installed an active lap belt in its Chevettes that have passive shoulder belts (these vehicles were introduced in the spring of this year). Active lap belts in these vehicles are not required by the standard, however.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures Constituent's Letter Standard No. 208

March 28, 1979

The Honorable Jack Brooks United States Representative District 9, State of Texas 2419 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515

Re: 1977 Volkswagon Rabbit passive shoulder belt restraint system

Dear Mr. Brooks:

I represent a young man who received serious head injuries in a traffic collision in which he was driving the vehicle in question. During the collision, our client was thrown against the door, the door flew open and our client was thrown out of the vehicle. We are of the opinion that the injuries were caused due to a defectively manufactured or designed passive restraint seat belt system.

We are in the process of gathering information so we can evaluate whether or not a law suit is appropriate. Today we contacted the Society of Automotive Engineers. The young man we spoke with told us that there are currently no standards for this type of passive restraint system. He did advise that there is at least one piece of legislation in Congress which deals with establishing such standards.

I would appreciate any help you could provide in the way of identifying, providing copies of or providing the names and addresses of someone who can advise me of the status of this legislation. I would also appreciate you referring me to any other individual or agency there in Washington who might be able to provide me with pertinent information.

Thanking you for your help in this matter, I am

Very truly yours,

Don Bush

DB/pw