ID: 1983-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Athey Products Corporation -- Roderic A. Esmonde

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E. Athey Products Corporation Capital Equipment Division P.O. Box 669 Raleigh, NC 27602

Dear Mr. Esmonde:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You enclosed a sample of a rigid plastic you would like to use on the side windows of street sweepers, and asked whether the standard would be applicable to that type of material.

Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials to be used on motor vehicles. Only those materials that are specified in the standard may be used on a vehicle, and only in the vehicle location specified for each glazing type. Thus, the sample you enclosed may be used only if it qualifies as one of the glazing types (Items) specified in the standard. A specific piece of glazing material qualifies as a particular glazing Item under the standard if it meets all of the performance tests specified in the standard for that Item. For example, your sample would be considered an Item 12 rigid plastic, which could be used in the vehicle locations specified for that glazing type, only if it passes all of the tests specified in the standard for Item 12 plastics.

Whether or not your sample does qualify as a permitted glazing Item under the standard will have to be determined by your company. The agency does not provide advance approval for any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine compliance with the Motor vehicle safety standards and to certify that compliance.

I would also note that the glazing manufacturer is required to certify, by markings etched on the material, any piece of glazing which is to be used in a motor vehicle (see S6. of Standard No. 205). These required markings would include a specification of the glazing type, e.g., "Item 12." The glazing sample you enclosed should be from a piece of certified material if that material is to be used on your motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JulY 12, 1983

Mr. Hugh Oates, Compliance Division

Dear Mr. Oates:

Please find attached a copy of our letter of June 15, which we fear must have gone astray.

We would appreciate your cooperation in giving us an early response so we may proceed further with our plans.

Roderic A. Esmonde P.E. Director of Engineering

June 15, 1983

Mr. Hugh Oates, Compliance Division, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Oates:

This will confirm our recent conversation regarding glazing materials for the front and side windows of street sweepers.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #205 defines the requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.

Section S5.1.2.1. Item 12 Rigid Plastics, and Section S5.1.2.2. Item 13 Flexible Plastics, define where these materials can be used.

We have been seriously considering using some form of Rigid Plastic for the side windows of the street sweepers we build. We enclose a sample piece of this material.

Would you be so kind as to advise us if the subject regulation also applies to this specific type as well.

Your kind cooperation and guidance is gratefully appreciated since we are, as such, neophytes in this area.

Yours very truly, ATHEY PRODUCTS CORPORATION

Roderic A. Esmonde, P.E. Director of Engineering

RAE/pfw

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: 1983-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Liberty Square

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P.O. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

The Department of Commerce has forwarded your letter of September 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office, for our reply. You have asked about Federal standards for motorcycle headlamps in connection with your investigation of an accident in Indiana involving a motorcycle reputedly equipped with "a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5"...smaller than a stock light." Indiana Law requires that motorcycles be equipped with headlamps meeting Federal standards.

The principal Federal standard on motorcycle headlighting is SAE Standard J584a, incorporated by reference in 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. The standards do not list permissible sizes for motorcycle headlamps that are not sealed beam, specifying only that the light emitted comply with requirements at various photometric test points. Thus, the small size of the lamp in question is not indicative that it failed to meet Federal motorcycle requirements.

However, we are not aware that motorcycle headlamps are available in rectangular sizes smaller than those used on passenger cars, i.e.,4" by 6". Perhaps the lamp in question was intended by its manufacturer for use as a driving lamp on passenger cars; its size is consistent with that type of lamp. But without further information I'm afraid we can be of no greater assistance.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Reference # 3-1538

September 27, 1983

P. T. Miller 90 W. 79th Avenue Liberty Square P. 0. Box G Merriville, Indiana 46410

Dear Mr. Miller:

This is in response to your letter about standards for sizes of motorcycle headlights.

I was unable to locate information on Department of Commerce standards in this area. However, Mr. Taylor Vinson of the Chief Counsel's Office of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration advised me that Federal transportation laws and standards have been under the jurisdiction of that agency since 1969. He asked me to send him a copy of your letter so that he could investigate your question and answer you directly.

Any further requests on this matter should be sent to:

Taylor Vinson Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20590 (202) 426-9511

Sincerely,

Christopher Benya Office of Consumer Affairs

cc: Taylor Vinson

September 9, 1983

Department of Commerce 14th St. East St. Northwest Room 5725 Washington D. C. 20230

Attention: Lee Gray Director of Consumer Affairs

RE: Our File No. 8-309072-1 Our Insured: Thomas Daniels Loss of: 8-12-83

Dear Mr. Gray:

I am investigating a serious accident involving an automobile and a motorcycle and the investigating police officer in his report stated that the light on the motorcycle was a custom light approximately 2 1/2" by 5" and was smaller that a stock light.

A check of the Indiana Statute regarding lamps or reflectors on motorcycles states that no motorcycles shall be operated on public streets or highways by a resident of this state that is not equipped with a lamp or reflectors meeting the standards of the US Dept. of Commerce as amended. You will note that they refer to the standards set by the Department of Commerce.

If you could forward to this office a copy of the directive showing the standards of headlights required on motorcycles that the Indiana Law refers to.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

P. T. Miller Asst. Distr. Claim Manager

66 E. SOUTH WATER ST./CHICAGO, IL 60601/(312) 372-1818

ID: 1983-1.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

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

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 18 1983 NOA-30

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

Dear Senator Percy:

This responds to your letter of March 25, 1983 (Ref. 3084500004) requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Ms. Mary Ella Dockson. Ms. Dockson 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 Ms. Dockson. 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 Ms. Dockson'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. Ms. Dockson 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

ID: 1984-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lamborghini of North America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America 23535 Telo Street Torrance, California 90505

Dear Mr. Thomas:

We have received your petition of July 6, 1984, for a two-year exemption of the Lamborghini Countach from the requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 that it be equipped with sun visors.

You have filed this petition pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield. Petitions of this nature are appropriate where a product has inadvertently been manufactured out of compliance but the noncompliance has been corrected and the manufacturer seeks relief from the statutory responsibilities of notification and remedy for its past production. We do not understand this to be the case, as you have not reported importation of any Countachs without sun visors.

The proper procedure to obtain temporary exemptions from prospective noncompliances are those of 49 CFR Part 555. We assume that you have a copy of this regulation. If you wish to petition on one of the bases of this regulation, we shall be pleased to consider the matter further.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 6, 1984

The Administrator NHTSA Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

RE: PETITION FOR PARTIAL EXEMPTION FROM FMVSS #201-LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP 500S

Enclosed, please find our petition for partial exemption from Standard 201 for sun visors on the basis that such non-compliance is inconsequential in relation to road safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America

TT:ac Enc.

LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP500S PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PART OF 49CFR PART 571.201.5.3.4.

49CFR 556.(B) (3)

APPLICANT: LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA 17230 SOUTH AVALON BOULEVARD CARSON, CALIFORNIA 90746

Applicant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California.

49CFR 556.(b)(4)

Temporary exemption is requested from 49CFR, Part 571.201.5.3.4.

Sunvisors

5.3.4.1. A sun visor that is constructed of or covered with energy absorbing material shall be provided for each front outboard designated seating position.

Exemption is requested for a period of two (2) years. Vehicle concerned is the Lamborghini Countach LP500S. Number of vehicles involved is fifty (50) per year, for each of the two (2) years for which exemption is requested.

49CFR 556.4(b) (5)

Basis for petition

Our basis for request for exemption is probably more relevant to 49CFR 556, in that in our opinion the non-compliance of the vehicle with the sun visor requirement is inconsequential relative to motor vehicle safety.

The roofline, front header rail, (actually a part of the tubular steel roll cage) and the top portion of the windshield which is lightly tinted are relatively low and the angles subtended at the eye point relative to the horizontal plane by the roofline and the bottom of the tinted strip are as low as conventional sun visor placement would provide. The enclosed photograph shows the view from eye-level.

The enclosed diagram shows the position of a 50th percentile male's head from and the generation of the angles subtended at the eye-point by the header rail and the lowest point of the tinted portion at the top of the windshield.

"INSERT"

ID: 1984-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David W. Allen; NHTSA

TO: Morton; Lewis; King & Krieg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Lewis:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 22, 1984

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

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

Dear Mr. Burndt:

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

MORTON, LEWIS, KING & KRIEG

Charles B. Lewis

CBL/bs

ID: 1984-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: T.M. Johnson, Jr. -- Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. T. M. Johnson, Jr. Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation Box 1109 Buffalo, N.Y. 14240-1109

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars. Specifically, you asked for an interpretation of the requirements of section S5.1 of Standard No. 119, which requires that a listing of the rims which may be used with each tire produced by a manufacturer be provided to the public. That section gives manufacturers the option of using the data provided for the tire size and the corresponding rims published in certain standardization organization yearbooks or listing the appropriate information "in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request, and in duplicate to NHTSA." You enclosed a copy of a paper label you propose to affix to a 15-inch motorcycle tire which is not currently listed in any of the standardization organization publications, and asked if this would satisfy the requirement that the information be contained in a document furnished to dealers and to any person upon request. The proposed paper label would satisfy the requirements of section S5.1 of the standard.

In the past, manufacturers electing to list the appropriate information for the tire size have sent bulletins to their dealers and distributors with the necessary information. The reason for requiring this wide dissemination of the appropriate information when a tire size is not listed in a standardization organization publication is to ensure that the tire will be mounted only on appropriate rims and that the tire will be mounted only on vehicles where its load-carrying capacity will be adequate. The paper label you furnished along with your letter shows the appropriate dimensional and load-carrying data for the tire and rims, so it appears to serve the purposes of section S5.1. Further, as you noted in your letter, the paper label should reach outlets beyond your distributor network, whereas a service bulletin might not reach those outlets. Accordingly, I conclude that a paper label affixed to a tire, which lists the appropriate dimensional and loading information for the tire and suitable rims, would satisfy the requirement that the appropriate information be listed in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires.

July, 23 1984

Stephen Kratzke, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel 5219 407th Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION MVSS119; S5.1, S5.1(a)

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

This confirms our prior conversations regarding Dunlop's intention to market a size MV85-15, load range C, motorcycle tire. This size is not currently listed in one of the publications referenced in MVSS119 S5.1(b). Enclosed is a copy of the tread label we hope to affix to every such tire and which contains the information we will supply to NHTSA and the public.

Paragraph S5.1(a) states "listed in a document furnished to dealers of the manufacturer's tires, to any person upon request and in duplicate to" NHTSA. Rather than issuing a bulletin that may not reach actual points of sale (motorcycle accessory shops) beyond our Distributor network, we propose that the information be printed on the tire's tread label. Whoever fits the tire to a rim and motorcycle will have the required information readily available. Upon request, the label may be detached and provided to the customer.

Therefore, we are at this time requesting your office to provide an interpretation of the Standard with respect to inclusion of meaning of "document".

Your expeditious response to this proposal will be much appreciated, since we will begin distribution in August.

Very truly yours,

DUNLOP TIRE & RUBBER CORPORATION

T. M. Johnson, Jr., Tire Performance Manager

ID: 1984-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Katten, Muchin, Zavis, Pearl & Galler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation Mr. Stephen M. Neumer Katten, Muchin, Zavis, Pearl & Galler 4100 Mid-Continental Plaza 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60603

Dear Mr. Neumer:

This responds to Your August 28, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regarding the labeling requirements specified in paragraph 5.2.2.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids, for containers of brake fluid. You asked whether a label that is "permanently glued" to the container conforms to Standard No. 116. The answer to your question is no.

As you are aware, NHTSA does not pass approval on the compliance of any vehicle or equipment with a safety standard before the actual events that underlie certification. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the manufacturer is required to determine whether its vehicles and equipment comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify its products in accordance with that determination. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

In your letter you referred to the interpretation that we issued on April 3, 1984, to the Wagner Division of the McGraw-Edison Company. In that interpretation we stated that paper labels on brake fluid containers are not sufficient to comply with the "indelibly marked" requirements of the standard. We interpreted S5.2.2.2 to require the relevant information to be marked directly on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label that is affixed to the container. The agency based this interpretation on the language contained in a notice of proposed rulemaking (35 FR 15229) which proposed to allow labeling on either the brake fluid container or a label or tag attached to the container and the subsequent language in the final rule (36 FR 11987) which did not adopt the proposed alternative permitting markings on labels or tags.

Based on the clear language in Standard No. 116 and our past interpretations on labeling requirements, we are unable to concur with your interpretation that the information required on containers of brake fluids may be marked on labels "permanently glued" to the container.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 28, 1984

Via Air Courier Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are aware of the inquiry of the Wagner Division of McGraw-Edison Company respecting the use of the loose-fitted paper sleeve label on poly-bottles containing brake fluid and your opinion regarding that labeling process. Our client is a packager of brake fluid which, like many of the major marketers of this product, packages brake fluid in poly-bottles but with wrap-around labels permanently glued to the container. By way of background, our client has been packaging brake fluid in this manner for over six years, with millions of bottles having been sold, without one complaint of a label coming unaffixed from a poly-bottle. The labeling is accomplished by sophisticated equipment, acquired at significant cost, and, in addition, there is a quality control department, to assure the permanence of the labels.

Please note that our client does not use a loose-fitting paper sleeve, but its label is permanently glued to the poly-bottle. I have enclosed an example of this kind of container, which is widely used throughout the industry (by way of information, this is not our client's bottle).

It is our opinion that, since the ink on the label is indelibly marked on each label and each label is thereafter permanently glued to the container (not just loosely fitted to the container by sliding it on), there is compliance with Paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116. Please confirm our opinion as soon as possible.

In advance, thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours, Stephen M. Neumer

ID: 1984-3.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transportation Manufacturing Corporation -- Robert Zeaton, Director of Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert Zeaton Director of Engineering Transportation Manufacturing Corporation P.O. Box 5670 (R.I.A.C.) Roswell, New Mexico 88201

This responds to your October 11, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration asking for permission to use an alternative location for certification labels required by Part 567, Certification.

According to your letter, you are requesting permission to use an alternative location because the locations specified in S567.4(c) are not practicable in your new "MCI" series of intercity buses. The label could not be legible when affixed to areas surrounding the driver's seating position without removing some permanently attached items, such as the driver's seat or steering column cover. You propose, as an alternative, the installation of the labels on the vertical left hand face of the entrance door stepwell. You state that this panel assembly is not removable for servicing and is readily visible in the entrance door and stepwell area.

In consideration of the problems of installing the certification labels on the new MCI buses in the positions specified in S567.4(c) and since the agency desires that these labels be easily readable, we grant your request to install your labels in these new "MCI" series of intercity buses in the alternative locations that you suggested, provided that all the other requirements of S567.4 are met.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 11, 1984 "4 PAGES INSERT HERE"

Administrator NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 Gentlemen:

This letter is being sent to you to address the requirements for the location of the VIN plate in a motor vehicle as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations under Title 49 - Transportation, Part 567 -Certification. In S567.4 - Requirements For Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles, the requirements for the location of the VIN plate in the vehicle are specified. There is a general requirement outlined that locates the VIN plate in the immediate vicinity of the driver's seat position.

Attached please find several photographs illustrating the problems with locating the VIN plate in the immediate area of the driver' s compartment on our new (MCI) series of intercity bus. The 'MCI' bus will go into production late this year with first vehicle deliveries scheduled for the end of 1984 or early 1985. A considerable amount of time has been spent reviewing possible locations for the VIN plate. The panel areas to the immediate left side, rear, and right side (driver's console) were all considered. As can be seen in the attached photos, there is no available location where the plate can be permanently installed and still be legible without removing some permanently attached items such as the driver's seat or steering column cover. From the standpoint of federal, state, and local inspections, as well as access to information for customer warranty purposes, this would of course not be practical.

Our present production vehicle (model MC-9) has the VIN plate located in the overhead ceiling cap to the left of the driver's seat (photo #5). As can be seen in photo #6, the new 'MCI' series of buses has the parcel rack extended over the driver's area, eliminating the ceiling cap mounting area. The lower dash area of the vehicle was also investigated, but there is not a practical location available.

After all of our investigations, the location that was found to be the most suitable on the new 'MCI' series was the vertical left hand face of the entrance door stepwall. This is shown in photos #4 and #6. In this location, the VIN plate is permanently rivetted to a stainless steel panel that forms an integral part of the bus. This panel assembly is not removable for servicing and is readily visible in the entrance door and stepwell area.

This proposed location in the front stepwell is by far the most practical one. We would therefore request that this proposal be reviewed and approved at your earliest possible convenience.

Very truly yours,

Robert Zeaton Director of Engineering

Attachments: 4 pages of photos

RZ/jsi

ID: 1985-01.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John S. Cucheran

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering Jac Products, Inc. 1901 E. Ellsworth Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Cucheran:

This is in reply to your letter of November 30, 1984, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Figure 10 of Standard No. 108 establishes the minimum design photometrics for center high mounted stoplamps. The test procedure for this particular part of Standard No. 108 which is specified in SAE J186a, stipulates that the "lamp axis shall be taken as the horizontal line through the light source." However, I believe that you have misinterpreted the light cone that is involved. The pertinent light cone in this case has its vertex at the photometer and a cross section at the plane of the lamp which encompasses the lens areas. From Drawing A that you have provided, it appears that your rail would interfere with this light cone.

In order to determine if your rack interferes with the photometric requirements, the vehicle must be tested with the rack in position as installed on the vehicle. As the agency has noted before, the photometric requirements do not specify that the entire lens must be visible from each 5 degree down test point. Instead, they specify the intensity of light that must be visible from those points. Therefore, the requirement can be met with a lamp whose lens is partially obscured by a portion of the vehicle when viewed from some of the test points.

We hope that this interpretation is helpful to you.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel November 30, 1984 Mr. Taylor Vinson U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Subject: Center Mounted Stop Light

Dear Mr. Vinson:

As you are aware, the cross rail on our deck mounted luggage racks supplied to O.E. automotive manufacturers infringes the 50 down cone requirement of Standard Number 108. This infringement will cause our products to be deleted from 1986 model vehicles equipped with center mounted stop lights with 50 cones that do not clear the rear rails.

Because we were not successful in getting a variance to allow infringement of the 5o cone on vehicles equipped with deck mounted luggage racks, our company will lose approximately 3 million dollars worth of business per year starting next summer, plus the loss of many jobs in an area already hit with some of the highest unemployment figures in the country. We are doing everything possible to adapt our products on new vehicles to save as many of our employees jobs as possible.

One thing that might make a difference on some potential 1986 business, is a clear definition of where the horizontal line, to establish the 5o cone, is taken from in the side view. I have enclosed two illustrations to clarify my request.

Illustration A shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the center of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone clears the bar.

Illustration B shows the relationship of the light cone taken from the bottom of the lens, to a cross rail section. As you will notice, the light cone is infringed by the cross rail. Mr. T. Vinson U.S. Department of Transportation November 30, 1984 Page Two

Several of our customers have taken for granted that the intent of the Standard is to establish the light path from the bottom of the lens. As you can see from our illustrations, the location of this point can mean approval or rejection of our products in cases such as this.

Your interpretation of our request, at your earliest date, would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours, John S. Cucheran Vice President Design and Engineering cc: Mr. Barry Felrice/Associate Administrator for Rulemaking Mr. Jack Bott/President-JAC Products Inc.

ID: 1985-02.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Herbert Kramer -- Acting Supreme Court Justice

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Herbert Kramer Acting Supreme Court Justice Justices' Chambers 360 Adams Street Brooklyn, NY 11201

Thank you for your letter of March 14, 1985, concerning a case pending before you that involves tinted side windows in a 1980 BMW. You asked us to provide you with information concerning the marking that appeared on the windows. I hope the following discussion of our glazing standard and the significance of the window markings is of assistance to you.

NHTSA has the authority, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles. We have issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and other requirements for different items of glazing used in new motor vehicles. (I have enclosed a copy of the standard that was in effect for 1980 model year cars. Also enclosed is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard No. Z-26 incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205).

The standard requires that glazing used in locations requisite for driving visibility have a luminous transmittance of 70 percent. The agency has considered all windows in a passenger car requisite for driving visibility. Thus, the side windows of a new 1980 BMW imported into the U.S. would have had to comply with the 70 percent luminous transmittance requirement.

Section S6 of Standard No. 205 requires glazing to have four items of identifying information on it. The four items are: a manufacturer's identification code assigned by our agency, the model number of the glazing assigned by the glazing manufacturer, the manufacturer's trademark or distinctive designation and an "AS" number indicating that it meets all of the performance requirements set for that glazing item number.

The markings you provided us from the aide windows of a 1980 BMW indicate the following. The marking "DOT 25" and "DOT 28 are code numbers assigned by this agency to prime glazing manufacturers. DOT 25 is the code number assigned to Flachglas AG of Bayern, Federal Republic of Germany. DOT 28 is the code number assigned to Vereinigte Glaswerke of Porz, Federal Republic of Germany. The markings "M202" and "MIOZ" (based on our experience with manufacturer's model number, we believe that "MIOZ" is a transcription error and should read "M012") are model numbers assigned by the glazing manufacturers. The markings "AS 2" signify that the glazing meets the requirement set in ANSI Z-26 for AS 2 glazing materials. The requirements for AS 2 glazing materials include a requirement in section 4.2 of ANSI Z-26 that AS 2 glazing meet the 70 percent luminous transmittance test of section 5.2. we believe the marking "Delodur - 1F Liz Sekurit" and "Duro-Glas 1F Liz Sekurit" are the trademarks or other distinctive designations assigned by the manufacturers. We do not know what the markings "BS 5282T", "0-295" and MD-291" represent, but we believe the latter two represent European manufacturer identification codes.

I hope this information is of assistance to you. If you have further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

March 14, 1985

Department of Transportation 400-7th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

There is a case presently before me concerning tinted side windows on a BMW 1980 automobile. Certain information was gathered from these windows and it is necessary for me to determine its significance, if any, with respect to the transmittance of light in accordance with the Vehicle & Traffic Law, section 375.

Please give me any pertinent information regarding the following data:

DOT 25 M202 AS 2 DELODUR - IF BS 5282T LIZ SEKURIT D-295

DOT 28 MIOZ AS 2 DURO-GLAS - IF LIZ SEKURIT MD 291 Thank you for your kind assistance in this matter. Very truly yours,