ID: nht80-1.31

DATE: 03/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Van Ness, Feldman & Sutcliffe, Robert G. Szabo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/17/79 letter from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne

TEXT:

April 17, 1980

Mr. Robert G. Szabo Van Ness, Feldman & Sutcliffe Suite 500 1220 Nineteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Szabo:

This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the legal ramifications of converting motor vehicle fuel systems to operate on both gasoline and compressed gas. I am enclosing a copy of a letter the agency issued last year which discussed the Federal law concerning auxiliary gasoline tanks and the conversion of gasoline-powered vehicles to propane. The discussion in that letter should answer all of your questions. If, however, you require further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my office at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

[letter dated 8/17/79 from Frank Berndt to Mike Champagne omitted here.]

March 20, 1980

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. William L. LaFollette, President of Dual Energy, Inc., has retained us to provide legal counsel on the company's proposal to retrofit motor vehicles to operate on both gasoline and compressed gas. We have talked with several persons from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) about the retrofit project. On the basis of those discussions and our legal analysis, it appears that no special NHTSA regulations are applicable to compressed gas fueled vehicles which are not also applicable to gasoline fueled vehicles. We respectfully request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provide Dual Energy, Inc. with a formal opinion to that effect.

Under Dual Energy's proposal, the retrofitted vehicle will be equipped with compressed gas storage tanks, fill valves, a regulator to control the pressure of the gas, and a mixer to supply the correct ratio of air and gas to the engine's carburetor, all of which will be permanently attached to the vehicle and will become an integral part of the vehicle. A switch on the dashboard will control whether the car is operating on compressed gas or gasoline. The retrofitting of the automobiles to dual fuel operation will involve no changes to the engine or its cooling, lubrication or ignition systems.

Dual Energy, Inc. plans to lease to automobile owners the vehicle retrofit equipment, including the carburetor system, the compressed natural gas tanks for the vehicle and compressing equipment necessary for filling the storage tanks from the lessee's residential or business natural gas service lines. In addition, Dual Energy intends to provide the necessary compressor equipment to several service stations in the Washington, D.C. area in order to provide convenient locations for the purchase of compressed gas for the retrofitted vehicles. Dual Energy, Inc. will not manufacture any of the equipment used in the retrofitting project, but rather will purchase the necessary equipment from various American and foreign manufacturers. Dual Energy, Inc. does plan, however, to perform the installation work for the project through its own employees or subcontractors. If all governmental permits are obtained on a timely basis, Dual Energy intends to begin offering the retrofitting equipment to the public in the Washington, D.C. area during the summer of 1980.

The vehicle's supply of compressed gas will be supplied from tanks permanently attached in the trunk area of the vehicle. A full-sized American car can accommodate two tanks of compressed gas in the trunk and retain a reasonable amount of space for luggage. The two tanks will provide a reasonable driving range for the vehicle and may be refilled in two ways: a "quick fill," which requires high pressure storage tanks and may be completed in two to five minutes; and "slow or overnight fill," which employs a mechanical compressor system with a refill time of 12 hours.

Use of compressed gas as a fuel provides a number of advantages, including a very low level of exhaust emissions, greater ease in starting the engine regardless of outside temperature, and longer life for spark plugs and lubricating oil. In addition, a compressed gas fuel system has several inherent safety advantages over gasoline systems, including rapid dispersion when leakage occurs; a higher ignition temperature (1300oF versus 800oF for gasoline); and stronger structural features in the fuel system due to the more rigorous storage requirements of compressed gas. An analysis of the safety record of natural gas-fueled vehicles, which was prepared for the American Gas Association (AGA) in December, 1979, revealed that no failures or fires involving the natural gas system had occurred in the estimated 1,360 collisions which have occurred in this country involving vehicles equipped with such systems. The AGA study covered approximately 2,463 vehicles which have been driven approximately 175 million miles to date.

We have reviewed Chapter V of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations to ascertain whether any special safety regulations apply to vehicles equipped with compressed gas fuel systems. From our review, we find no special requirements. If there are any such regulations or proposed regulations, please advise us of their terms.

If we can provide you with any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us. We believe that Mr. LaFollette has an exciting project which furthers our nation's energy policy and will benefit consumers in the Washington area. We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter and look forward to receiving your determinations on these issues.

With kindest regards,

Sincerely,

Robert G. Szabo

ID: nht88-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Frank S. Perkin -- Assistant General Counsel, The Budd Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 9/22/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Steven R. Taylor; 2/7/83 letter from Frank Berndt to H.J. Lindekugel

TEXT:

Frank. S. Perkin, Esq. Assistant General Counsel The Budd Company Law Department 3155 West Big Beaver Road Box 2601 Troy, Michigan 48084

This responds to your letter expressing concern about a statement in one of our interpretation letters, which you believe could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heading and welding. As discussed below, our letter's reference to remanufacturing wheels was made only to serve as an illustrative example. and was not intended to address either the safety of such processes or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies.

The interpretation letter in question is one that we sent on September 22, 1986, to Steven R. Taylor, responding to a request concerning regulations that apply to manufacturers of reconditioned brake drums. The letter included the following paragraph:

NHTSA has in the past considered the issue of what types of operation; bake a person a manufacturer with respect to retreaded tire; and remanufactured wheels. A person who retreads tires is considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety Act. Th e retreading process involves significant manufacturing operations, which do not differ substantially from those of manufacturing new tires. By contrast, a person who remanufactures wheels is not considered to be a manufacturer under the Vehicle Safety A ct. The process of remanufacturing wheels consists of such things as straightening, re-welding parts, and repairing cracks by welding. These types of actions are not significant manufacturing operations, but instead are the type of operations commonly pe rformed in repair shops.

You stated that all of the things mentioned in our letter, i.e., straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard applicable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. You also stated th at the "out of service" criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels. According to your letter, any significant changes made after the manufactur e of a steel truck wheel, especially involving bending, heating or welding, carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe.

As is indicated from the context of our September 22, 1986 interpretation letter, the reference to remanufacturing wheels was made solely for the purpose of providing an illustrative example and was not intended to address either the safety of such proce sses or their permissibility or impermissibility under the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies. I would note that NHTSA has long taken the position that remanufactured wheels are considered to be used wheels instead of new wheels for purposes of Federal motor vehicle safety standards. See, for example, our November 28, 1973 letter addressed to Mr. L. Clinton Rich and February 7, 1983 letter to Mr. H. J. Lindekugel (copies enclosed). Again, however, these letters do not purport to address the safety of remanufacturing wheels or the relevant regulations of other Federal agencies.

We appreciate your bringing to our attention your concern about the safety of remanufactured wheels. Copies of this correspondence are being placed in the public docket.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington. D.C.

Dear Ms Jones:

Reference is made to a letter you wrote to Steven Taylor dated Sept. 22, 1986, which was distributed by the TTMA to its members. A copy is enclosed for your convenience.

The Budd Company, as a wheel manufacturer. is seriously concerned by a comment in the next to last paragraph of your letter which could be read as condoning the practice of rebuilding wheels by processes which include heating and welding same.

While I am sure that this was not your intent, I believe it is appropriate to note that all of the things mentioned in your letter, i.e. straightening, re-welding parts and repairing cracks by welding, are specifically prohibited by the OSHA standard app licable to truck wheels, both multi and single piece. See 29 CFR 1910. I further note that the "out of service" criteria adopted by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety of the DOT mandate that a vehicle be placed out of service if welded repairs are found on certain disc wheels.

The basis for all of this is that the manufacture of a steel truck wheel is a complex process involving carefully calculated cold forming of its components to produce the required strength, followed by controlled welding or other joining processes, I fol lowed again by elaborate testing to verify the integrity and efficacy of the final product. Any significant changes made later, especially involving bending, heating or welding carry a significant risk of rendering the wheel unsafe.

For the above reasons I hope you will consider advising anyone who may have received the referenced or any similar letter from your agency that such practices are not condoned and may be unlawful. Very truly yours

Frank S. Perkin Asst. General Counsel

cc: Truck Trailer Mfgrs Assn 1020 Princess St Alexandria Va 22314

ID: nht88-1.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/22/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hutchison, Anders & Associates, P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard L. Hutchison Hutchison, Anders & Associates, P.C. 16860 S. Oak Park Av. Tinley Park, IL 60477

Dear Mr. Hutchison:

This responds to your October 14, 1987, letter asking about the applicability of Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to "replacement gas caps" that your client intends to market. I apologize for the delay in responding.

You said that several of your client's customers have requested this agency's approval of your client's product. You asked for confirmation of your understanding that the gas caps do not have to be approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety correct. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with our Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed), each manufacturer o f a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to replacement gas caps. Safety Standard No. 301 applies only to completed new motor vehicles and specifies performance requirements that must be met by the fuel syst em as a whole following a barrier crash test. The standard does not apply to individual components of a fuel system or to aftermarket equipment for use on fuel systems.

Although Standard No. 301 would not directly apply to your client's replacement gas caps, there are responsibilities under Federal law of which your client should be aware. Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, which includes aftermarket gas caps, ar e subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities.

In addition, there are prohibitions against certain modifications of new and used vehicles. Section 108(a)(2)(n) of the Safety Act specifies 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 new or used motor vehicle in compliance with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, no person in any of the aforementioned categories may place your client's gas cap on a motor v ehicle if by so doing the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 were negatively affected.

Whether or not your client's replacement gas cap could be installed by a person in one of those categories on a vehicle without destroying the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 301 or any other Federal safety standard is a determination that must be made by any commercial business in the aforementioned categories of 5108(a)(2)(A) making the installation. NHTSA does not pass advance approval on motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment prior to the actual events that underlie a modification and we a re unable to offer any opinion on whether your client's gas cap would negatively affect a vehicle's fuel system performance.

The prohibition of 5108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, under Federal law, they may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

We suggest that you contact the Environmental Protection Agency to see whether the EPA has any type of emissions standard that might affect your client's manufacture of his gas caps. The general telephone number for the EPA is (202) 382-2090.

I hope this information has been helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Ms. Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Avenue, Southwest Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones: I am writing in regard to my client who is selling a replacement gas cap on the open market. My associate, Ed Petty, had a telephone conversation on October 9, 1987 with Ms. Diedra Hom. She suggested that you were the person to contact regarding a legal interpretation of N.H.T.S.A. Safety Regulation #301.

My client is the manufacturer of a universal replacement gas cap which cannot be lost because of its hinged flip-open access top. Several of my client's customers have requested D.O.T. or N.H.T.S.A. approval of my client's product. Mr. Petty spoke with M r. Williams in your Rule Making Division on October 8, 1987. He thought that compliance with Safety Regulation #301 would not be required for my client's gas cap, If this exempt from regulation. However, if he is required to comply with any D.O.T. or N.H .T.S.A. regulation, I need to know what those regulations are and what he will be required to do to comply with them.

We will sincerely appreciate your prompt reply to this request. If you need any further information, please contact the undersigned by phone (1-312-532-7100) or by mail, at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

HUTCHINSON, ANDERS & ASSOC., P.C.

Richard L. Hutchison

ID: nht93-4.45

DATE: June 25, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Linda Roberson -- President, Body Safety Kids Club, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-5-93 EST from Linda Roberson to NHTSA (OCC 8490); Also attached to letter dated 2-25-92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Phil Gray (VSA 108(a)(2)(A)); Also attached to letter dated 9-6-84 from Frank Berndt to Phillip Ables.

TEXT: This responds to your letters about the "vest harness" you have designed for the Body Safety Kid's Club, and follows up on a June 4, 1993 telephone call to you from Deirdre Fujita of my staff. The question posed by your inquiry is whether the manufacture of the vest harness is regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The answer is no.

Your letter indicated that the vest harness is made to help parents restrain their children in public areas, and especially in crowds. The vest harness has a strap-like "tether" that a parent would hold to prevent the child from wandering off on his or her own, possibly getting lost. Your letter also indicated that the vest harness could possibly be used as a seat belt accessory" and that you wanted NHTSA to crash test your product with child dummies to see how it would perform in the vehicle. (You did not know that NHTSA does not test manufacturers' products before the sale of the product.) However, after discussing NHTSA's requirements for motor vehicle vest harnesses with Ms. Fujita, you advised that you will not recommend its use as a safety belt accessory or as a motor vehicle harness. You expect that the vest harness would be worn in the vehicle only insofar as it need not be removed to restrain the child; the vehicle's lap/shoulder belt could be threaded between the vest and the child.

NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act") to regulate the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, 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 ...

Your vest harness is plainly not a "system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured," nor is it a "similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement" of an original equipment part of a motor vehicle. The issue is whether the vest harness would be an "accessory" within the meaning of the Safety Act. In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

With regard to the first criterion, the product literature enclosed with your product emphasizes that the vest harness is meant to be used outside of motor vehicles. While the vest harness occasionally may be worn in a motor vehicle, use in the vehicle is incidental to the vest's use as a means to better supervise the child in public areas. Further, you informed Ms. Fujita that you will ensure that the product literature for the vest harness will not claim that the vest harness could improve crash protection in the vehicle, such as by better positioning the vehicle's belts on the child or by preventing the child from circumventing the vehicle belt system. Given this information, a substantial portion of the expected uses of the vest harness do not appear related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles, so the vest harness is not considered an item of "motor vehicle equipment." This means that your product is not subject to any of the laws and regulations administered by NHTSA.

We would like to note the following, however. Products that are sold to alter the fit of vehicle belts to better accommodate children are considered "motor vehicle equipment" by NHTSA. I have enclosed a copy of a February 25, 1992 letter to Mr. Phil Gray as an example of one such letter. Although we have concluded that your product is not motor vehicle equipment, we emphasize that this conclusion is based on the information you provided about the very limited use of the vest harness in motor vehicles. In the event that the expected use of the vest harness changes to include motor vehicle use (e.g., as a seat belt accessory), the vest harness might well be considered an item of motor vehicle equipment regulated by NHTSA. Further, as an equipment item, the vest harness could be subject to our motor vehicle safety standard for child harnesses, FMVSS No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." A copy of our September 6, 1984 letter to Mr. Phillip Ables generally discussing requirements of that standard is enclosed. If the expected use of the vest harness changes, please contact us for information about Standard No. 213 and other NHTSA requirements.

In addition, you may wish to consult the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any requirements applicable to your product. That agency protects the public against unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products. You may write to the Consumer Product Safety Commission at 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, 20207, or contact them by telephone at (301) 492-6580.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht76-4.2

DATE: 03/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Motor Coach Industries' February 20, 1976, letter asking whether Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires the installation of parking brakes on all non-steerable axles of a bus, including a lightly-loaded axle, in satisfaction of the emergency braking provisions of S5.7.1. Once parking brakes are applied on the non-driving, lightly-loaded axle on some Motor Coach Industries (MCI) buses in cold, wet weather, the linings can freeze to the drums and "lock" the wheels so that they will not turn even after the parking brake is released. You suggest that parking brakes are inappropriate on a lightly-loaded axle, citing an interpretation of the standard that stated parking brakes are not required on an air-lift axle which lifts off the ground when the vehicle is parked.

MCI raised the same question of parking brake requirements for lightly-loaded axles in an April 17, 1972, letter requesting interpretation of the provision of S5.7.1 that requires automatic application of parking brakes. At the time, the NHTSA had just issued S5.7.1, expanding the methods for meeting performance levels for emergency braking performance. The question of whether parking brakes should be required on all axles under S5.7.1 was left open pending formal rulemaking.

What was not raised in MCI's April 1972 letter was whether both methods for meeting S5.7.1 performance levels necessitate parking brakes on all non-steerable axles. Section S5.7.1.2 permits reliance on retardation force capabilities of each non-steerable axle or, in the alternative, reliance on vehicle stopping capability using the vehicle's available parking brakes. In the second case, the NHTSA does not interpret S5.7.1 to require installation of parking brakes on an axle if it is not necessary to meet the stopping performance of S5.7.2.3 specified under S5.7.1.2. To the degree the language of S5.7.1 does not specifically address this method of satisfying the requirement, we regret that the agency's July 1972 response was not more clear.

An interpretative amendment of S5.7.1 would be appropriate in view of the difficulties that its misinterpretation has caused. However, in view of the short time remaining before the automatic application option will no longer be available, the NHTSA does not expect to undertake rulemaking to formalize this interpretation.

YOURS TRULY,

Motor Coach Industries, Inc.

February 20, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Tag Axle Parking Brake - MVSS 121 S 5.7.1.

Since March 1, 1975 Motor Coach Industries, Inc. of Pembina, N.D. had to add a parking brake (piggy back spring brake) to the tag axle wheels on MC-8 model coaches sold with the optional "Parking brake with automatic application" in order to comply to MVSS #121, S 5.7.1. The option for automatic application is a requirement for the States of New Jersey and Massachusetts and constitues about 20% of the MC-8 yearly production. One hundred and seventy five coaches have been equipped with this braking system since March 1, 1975. The addition of the piggy back parking brake is solely to meet the requirement of S 5.7.1 "parking brake on each axle, except steerable front axles" and is not needed to meet the parking brake performance.

During winter operation a problem has developed and quick action had to be taken to provide protection to the bus passengers due to possibility of tire fire. A copy of the Defect Information Report initiated by Motor Coach is attached for your review. A copy of a letter from a bus operator is also attached together with a picture of two damaged tires. In the letter of Mr. W. Owens of Capitol Bus Company, you will notice that a State trooper stopped the driver of bus CP 861 after noticing the wheels not turning.

M.C.I. is approaching NHTSA to obtain an interpretation of S5.7.1. which would differenciate between axle loading. Already an interpretation to the Dura Corporation ref - N40-30 (TWH) by your office states "the requirement for parking brake retardation force does not apply to an axle which is not on the ground when the parking brake system is activated." The tag axle wheels give a reading of 3,000 lbs per wheel at the ground level while the drive axle will carry to 11,000 lbs per duo wheel.

The parking brake retardation force is negligeable as the deterioration of the tire shows it. MCI has built 2,550 MC-7 model coaches and 1,500 MC-8 model coaches for the last 8 years without the need for parking brakes on the tag axle. We have a clear record as to the operation of the parking brake on our vehicles and do not understand the agency arbitrary requirement for a parking brake on each non-steerable front axle without consideration of axle loading. Our certification nameplate shows a G.A.W.R. of 22,000 lbs for the drive axle and a G.A.W.R. of 6,000 lbs. for the tag axle. This difference in axle rating on a same vehicle with the same tire size explains why the parking brake (DD3) on the drive axle will free under motion while the tag axle will drag along.

Effective September 1, 1976, MVSS 121 will prohibit the automatic application vs. a modulated control of the parking brake and no requirement for parking brakes on each non steerable front axle is maintained.

It is unfortunate to penalize the small number of coaches involved, to raise the cost of the vehicle without added return and to expose the bus operators to obvious danger.

George A. Hunt Engineering Manager

ID: nht76-4.39

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Solar Control Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 22, 1976, letter regarding the use of "Solar Control Reflective Films" in motor vehicles. You asked several questions concerning the applicability of Federal requirements to the manufacture and sale of your "Scotchtint" protective film.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter to Mr. Mark T. Lerche from this agency that discussed the applicability of Federal requirements to his company's "Madico" solar protective film. The discussion in that letter is equally applicable to "Scotchtint" protective film and should answer your questions. The main point to be noted is that these protective films that are attached to glass are not "glazing" themselves and, therefore, the requirements of Federal Safety Standard No. 205 are not applicable to the manufacture of the film. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer, dealer, or vehicle repair business that applies the film to ensure that glazing remains in compliance with the standard. Of course, if your company applies the film to any glazing you would fall in this same category.

It is laudable that your company is interested in ensuring that its film is not used in a manner that would be detrimental to the safety of the motoring public. Although it is not your responsibility to do so, a safety warning to your consumers that "Scotchtint" should not be placed on vehicle glazing in "areas requisite for driving visibility," would be helpful.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

SINCERELY,

Industrial Tape Division

September 22, 1976

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Usage of Solar Control Reflective Films in Vehicles

Our organization is presently manufacturing sun control films under the brand name "SCOTCHTINT".

When originally invented and taken to the marketplace the products were designed and intended for application to existing window glass for the purpose of reducing the transmission of heat, glare and ultraviolet light.

Following the introduction of the original product concept, additional product variations have been developed in response to specific customer/market demand with the result that today there is a family of products marketed.

An assortment of technical and promotional literature on our products is enclosed for your reference.

In the marketing of our products we have taken the position that the application of "SCOTCHTINT" Brand Films to automobiles is not recommended and our dealer applicator training and consumer do-it-yourself literature stipulate this fact. However, the demand for a sun control film has been increasing, particularly for recreational vehicles. We are also aware that other manufacturers of reflective films are implementing aggressive programs to sell their products in the automotive/recreational van market areas. All of this activity causes us to re-evaluate our own position.

We have been soliciting information and assistance from various sources and take this opportunity to review with you our understanding and ask for your verification and/or clarification:

1) It is our understanding that if we actively promote the sale of sun control films to vehicle manufacturers, then we must determine whether the products being offered are in compliance with Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. This would apply to visible light transmittance, abrasion resistance, etc.

2) If the products are marketed to automotive refinish shops, the same conditions would apply as to selling to the automotive manufacturers in that an automotive refinish shop may only use products that are in compliance with the act cited above.

3) Insofar as the after-market is concerned, i.e. selling directly to the consumer for self-application, the above act does not apply.

To elaborate on points 1 and 2 we further understand that compliance must be determined by the manufacturer and should compliance be challenged or questioned by the Office of Standard Enforcement, then they would have the product evaluated by an independent agency or laboratory. Should it be found that the manufacturer is not in compliance they would be cited accordingly and appropriate fines would be levied.

Should we promote the sale of reflective films for the after-market, we should do so with the stipulation that the film should not be applied to the windshield or front side windows of any vehicle, be it automobile or recreational van. However, application is permissible, and legal under Federal law, on rear side windows and on the rear window so long as the vehicle has an outside rear view mirror.

We visualize a fairly good sales potential in recreational vehicles, such as trailers and self-contained units, if we restrict application to rear side windows and rear windows. We know that a need exists for our product and that our products will make a contribution not only in passenger comfort, but also in the area of energy conservation, i.e. air conditioning equipment will function more efficiently and reduce fuel consumption.

We want to approach this market in an ethical manner, and therefore, respectfully request your guidance.

Your prompt response to this letter and your cooperation will be sincerely appreciated.

M. P. McNiff, Global Market Planning Manager Solar Control Products

dc: D. ALLEN G. A. BERGER; J. R. BERG; T. J. SCHEUERMAN

ID: nht73-2.34

DATE: 11/07/73

FROM: R.B. DYSON -- ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY JOHN G. WOMACK

TO: Missouri Automobile Dealers Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 10, 1973, concerning the legality of disconnecting seat belt interlocks.

The interlock is a required item of safety equipment that must be operable on any new car when it is sold or offered for sale, pursuant to section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. After an interlock equipped car is sold, however, the purchaser may disconnect the interlock, without violating the Act, by virtue of section 108(b)(1), which exempts transactions after the first purchase of the vehicle.

If a dealer offers to disconnect an interlock as an inducement to the sale of the vehicle, it is our opinion that a violation of the act occurs even though the actual disconnection may take place after delivery of the vehicle. If, on the other hand, the subject of the interlock is not discussed during the sale and the buyer subsequently requests disconnection on the basis of his experience with the vehicle, the dealer would not violate the Act if he disconnected the interlock.

Although a dealer does not violate the act by suggesting that the buyer go somewhere else to have the interlock disconnected, I am sure you appreciate the troublesome consequences such advice may bring for the buyer if the resulting disconnection is carelessly performed.

YOURS TRULY,

October 10, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

As you can see from the enclosed article of the October 1, 1973 issue of Automotive News, it is reported by Congressman Dante B. Fascell, that he received a letter August 20, 1973 from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs, in which he states:

"Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards (safety belt interlocks). The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."

Dr. Gregory, many of my dealers have called wanting to know if the report by Mr. Carter is the truth. Can you tell me?

1. Is it a violation for my dealers after they make the sale to disconnect the interlock system or make it inoperative?

2. Is it against the law for a dealer to tell a purchaser of a 1974 car that he can go some where else and get it disconnected?

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

MISSOURI AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Ralph J. Kalberlon Executive Vice President Joe Machens President

cc: David Castles, Castles-Wilson Buick Casey Meyers-Casey Meyers Ford, Inc.

in the letterbox

Who can tamper?

On Page 1, of the Sept. 10 issue of AUTOMOTIVE NEWS, appears a story by J. Donald Williamson, "First Buyers Turned Off by Interlocks."

The second and third paragraphs of your story read as follows:

"Forbidden by law to remove or tamper with the new system, dealers resorted to their own ingenuity to allay customer gripes and many and varied were the suggestions.

"Generally, stringent objections were met by suggesting the customer might stop at a service station on the way home where mechanics not hampered by federal edict could render the system inoperative."

After studiously searching for an answer to this question we finally received a letter dated Aug. 22, from Congressman Dante B. Fascell in which he enclosed a letter dated Aug. 20, 1973, he received from Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator of Motor Vehicle Programs. The third paragraph reads as follows:

"In the case of starter interlock safety belts, they are required, at the time of purchase, in all passenger cars manufactured on or after Aug. 15, 1973. Once an individual has purchased and taken delivery of the vehicle, intending to use it and not simply to resell it, it passes beyond the scope of the standards. The owner could thereupon modify it, or have the dealer modify it, without threat of sanction under the act."

It appears that the ruling from the U.S. Department of Transportation is directly contrary to the information conveyed in your story.

This matter is of such importance to all dealers we think it imperative that you retract our statement.

If by chance there is a subsequent ruling from the administrator, then we would be grateful if you would immediately furnish us with the latest release -- Edgar Jones, general manager, Nolan - Brown Motors, Inc., Miami.

Motors safety experts (AMC models were the only ones involved in the story).

As is pointed out in Reader Jones' letter, the law appears to permit a dealer to modify the interlock after the car is sold.

Dealers should keep in mind, however, that it is clearly the intent of the law that nobody tamper with the interlock. AMC people are obviously taking a supercautious stance.

Furthermore, a House bill currently under consideration would ban anyone, including the owner, from tampering with any safety item.

ID: nht76-1.14

DATE: 10/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your April 9, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to certain combination hydraulic brake hose assemblies.

Figure 3 of your letter depicts two typical brake hose assemblies that are connected end-to-end. Figure 4 depicts the intended installation of such a pair of assemblies, with the joined fittings meeting at a bracket that is attached to a shock absorber. Figures 1 and 2 show two designs to simplify the structure at this juncture.

Treating these figures in reverse order, the "B type" design shown in Figure 2 is similar to the pair of assemblies shown in Figure 3, except that the pair of joined end fittings is replaced with a single center fitting. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) considers such a construction to be two distinct brake hose assemblies, which would be tested separately for compliance with Standard No. 106-74. The center fitting would simply be considered an end fitting for each of these assemblies.

The "A type" design shown in Figure 1 would be treated differently, however. In this design, the two separate pieces of hose are replaced by a single piece that runs the full length between the outermost end fittings. In place of joined fittings as in Figure 3 or a center fitting as in Figure 2, this hose would be surrounded by molded rubber and a metal ring. The ring would be mounted in the bracket that is attached to the shock absorber. The NHTSA considers this construction to be a single brake hose assembly, and testing for compliance with Standard No. 106-74 would be conducted accordingly. For example, the tensile strength test would be performed by pulling, at the outermost fittings, on the full length of the hose. However, this interpretation would not require the assembly to be capable of meeting the whip resistance requirement of S5.3.3 with the full length subject to flex. The NHTSA considers such a brake hose assembly to have two distinct "free lengths" -- one on either side of the center metal ring. Therefore, the whip resistance test would be performed separately on each of these portions. In other words, the metal ring would be treated as an "end fitting," for the purposes of the whip resistance test described in S6.3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

TOYODA GOSEI CO., LTD.

April 9, 1975

Richard B. Dyson -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson

We want to obtain an approval for the two types of hydrauric brake hose assemblies as shown in the attached Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Please tell us how to obtain the approval.

Sometimes we have to fix an intermediate point of hose assembly to prevent it from being in touch with any part of motor vehicle as shown in Fig. 4. Currently, in this case, we joint No. 1 hose assembly with No. 2 hose assembly as shown in Fig. 3 and use the joined hose, which we call "joint hose assembly". For example, its jointed fitting is fixed on the frange of a shock absorber as shown in Fig. 4.

We obtain the approval for each No. 1 hose assembly and No. 2 hose assembly when they are used as joint hose assembly. When we use A type and B type hose assemblies which are shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 respectively, how can we obtain their approvals.

1. Explanation of A and B type hose assembly

a) A type hose assembly

This hose assembly has the part which is constructed with insert metal ring and molded rubber as shown in Fig

b) B type hose assembly

This hose assembly has the integrated "center fitting" as shown in Fig. 3.

2. Questions

Please answer the following questions.

a) About A type hose assembly

Can we use A type hose assembly from which the metal ring and molded rubber are taken off when we estimate its performance?

b) About B type hose assembly

1) Should we regard that this is composed of two hose assemblies and estimate their performances separately?

2) Or should we test it as one hose assembly?

In the latter case, how should we practice the following performance tests?

1; Constriction

* Can we test the constriction of the center fitting by using a long gauge plug as shown in Fig. 5?

2; Free length * Should we regard the sum of free length of the two parts as that of the B-type hose assembly? (That is, L[1] + L[2] in Fig. 2)

3; Whip test

* Should we test it using a special jig as shown in Fig. 6?

* Should we test B type hose assembly in the same method as usual hose assembly is tested as shown in Fig. 7? In this case we can not proof the required whip performance for this type hose.

* Or can we regard the whip performance of usual hose assembly, whose free length is equal to L in Fig. 2 as that of B type hose assembly? (cf. Fig. 8)

4; Tensile test

* Should we determine the tensile strength of the two parts separately as shown in Fig. 9?

* Or can we test it as the usual hose assembly with only two end fittings as shown in Fig. 10?

Your kind reply will be appriciated

Very truely yours,

Katsuhiko Yokoi -- Chief staff Ist. Product Development Sect

[Graphics omitted]

ID: nht75-2.43

DATE: 08/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 10, 1975, asking whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 preempts Section 25950 of the California Vehicle Code with respect to Mercury Monarch taillamps.

Section 25950 requires in pertinent part that all lamps visible from the rear of a vehicle be red, "whether lighted or unlighted", except that taillamps may be white when unlighted. Standard No. 108 requires passenger car taillamps to be "red" (Table III), and "the taillamp indication" to be red (SAE Standard J585, Tail Lamps, June 1966, incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108). The taillamps on the Mercury Monarch are covered with amber lenses. Although the lamp meets the color and photometric requirements of Standard No. 108 when lighted, California is of the opinion that use of the amber lens is prohibited by Section 25950.

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 prohibits a State from establishing or continuing in effect any motor vehicle safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a vehicle or equipment item as a Federal standard which is not identical to it. We interpret Standard No. 108 as requiring only that the color of the taillamp "indication" be red. The method by which this is accomplished is left to the vehicle manufacturer. The indication could be provided by a combination of a white bulb and a red lens (the conventional taillamp), a red bulb and white lens (permitted by California) or, as in your case, a red bulb and an amber lens. Although the color of the taillamp lens is not directly specified by Standard No. 108, the performance of the lamp as an assembly is covered in detail by the standard, and we consider that the color aspects of taillamps are within the scope of these requirements. If the lamp assembly complies with the Federal standard, then a State may not prohibit its use. We therefore find that in this instance 49 CFR 571.108, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, renders void the requirement of Section 25950 of the California Vehicle Code that unlighted taillamps be colored red.

Sincerely,

Office of the General Counsel

Ford Motor Company

June 10, 1975

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Re: 1975 Monarch Rear Taillamp Part No. (2) (A) (2) - IP2R(2)S(3)T75CT

We are writing to seek the express confirmation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the preemptive effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108, 49 CFR 571.108 ("Standard 108") on passenger car lighting, as was provided by NHTSA in Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. v. Younger, No. Civ. S74-126 (D.C.E.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 1974).

This request is being made so that we may respond to the attached correspondence (Attachment I) from Mr. Warren M. Heath, Commander, California Highway Patrol, concerning compliance with Section 25950* of the California Vehicle Code by the 1975 Monarch rear taillamps. Mr. Heath's letters of April 8 and May 25 content that the amber lens applied over a red lens on one of the monarch taillamp compartments violates that provision of the California Vehicle Code Section 25950 which does not permit a taillamp to be amber when unlighted. On this basis, Mr. Heath has stated that similarly equipped 1976 model year Monarchs will not be eligible for registration in California. * Section 25950 provides in pertinent part: "(b) All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear.

This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot - candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps and turn signal lamps visible to the rear may be white when unlighted."

We believe the provisions of Section 25950 are preempted by Standard 108, and that pursuant to Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 USC 1392 (d)), California is precluded from the enforcement of any nonidentical standard.

As the NHTSA has confirmed on several occasions, the Standard's lighting requirements are intended to be comprehensive and exclusive, and leave no room for differing state standards. The statement of the Administrator cited by the Court in the Motorcycle Industry Council judgement is particularly pertinent here where California seeks to enforce a differing standard for the precise function (i.e., taillamp color) covered by Standard 108. (Letter from James B. Gregory, Administrator NHTSA, to W. Pudinski, Commissioner, Dept. of Highway Patrol, dated Nov. 8, 1973, N40-30 (RBD).)

Compliance of the Monarch rear lamps with the requirements of Standard 108 has been confirmed by tests conducted at Ford. (Attachment II) Therefore, we seek an opinion on the issue of preemption with respect to the differing California requirements of Section 25950.

For your assistance, we are enclosing color photos of the Monarch and Monarch Ghia rear lamps which demonstrate their appearance when lighted and unlighted. (Attachment III) Photo #1 is of the Monarch rear lamp unlighted. Photo #2 shows the taillamp (3 exterior red compartments) lighted. Photos #3 and #4 are of the Monarch Ghia.

If you have any questions on this matter, please so inform me. I may be reached by telephone at (313) 337-6462. We hope to receive a response at your earliest convenience.

Nancy Kolodny Staff Attorney

ID: nht75-3.2

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ideal Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 11, 1975. You ask for confirmation that "variable load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 of the Standard, where such devices shall operate in accordance with the appropriate Tables of the Standard." You noted that some suppliers were under the impression that variable load flashers, which do not provide a failure indication, were not permitted as after-market replacements for fixed-load flashers.

The confusion apparently arose when the agency amended S4.5.6 of Standard No. 108 (June 6, 1974; 39 FR 20063) to permit variable-load flashers to be used (i.e., to except from the failure indicator requirement) on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers (as well as vehicles of 80 inches or more overall width and those equipped to tow trailers, as provided by S4.5.6 before the amendment). To specify its intent more definitely, the amendment added the words, "where a variable-load turn signal flasher is used," to the exception to the requirement for a failure indicator. Some persons evidently thought that the new, explicit reference to variable-load flashers meant that such flashers could not be used as replacement equipment where the vehicles originally had fixed-load flashers.

That was not the agency's intent. The language was only added to make it clear that where a fixed-load flasher is installed as original equipment, a failure indicator must be included. But a variable-load flasher may be used as replacement equipment for a fixed-load flasher on any of the vehicle classes specified in S2 as covered by the standard.

Incidentally, the statement in your letter that the June 1974 amendment "concerned itself only with original equipment applications" is incorrect. S2 of the standard states in pertinent part that it applies to "lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment for replacement of like equipment on vehicles to which this standard applies." This means that equipment must comply with applicable requirements regardless of whether it is used as original or replacement equipment. For example, original and replacement variable load flashers must both meet the appropriate requirements of SAE Standard J590b, "Automotive Turn Signal Flashers," October 1965.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 11, 1975

Frank A. Berndt, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation

Re: Confirmation of Earlier Interpretation Concerning S4.5.6, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

As a result of recent misinterpretations of S4.5.6 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 by certain suppliers of turn signal flashers, Ideal Corporation requests a confirming interpretation of this regulatory provision reflecting the advice provided the company by NHTSA Chief Counsel in February 1971. A copy of the earlier letter from Chief Counsel, which was a response to a petition for rule making on the specific point at issue, is attached for your background information and reference.

As the Safety Administration is aware from submissions filed by Ideal Corporation in earlier actions involving Standard 108, the company is a manufacturer of turn signal flasher and vehicular hazard warning signal flasher units for both the original equipment and replacement markets, and is located in Brooklyn, New York.

In June of 1974, NHTSA, responding to a petition by Ford Motor Company, amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 to allow variable load turn signal flashers on trucks capable of accommodating slide-in campers. This action resulted in an amendment of paragraph S4.5.6 of the standard, and concerned itself only with original equipment applications. 39 Fed. Reg. 20063 (June 6, 1974).

In the preamble to the June 1974 amendment of Standard 108, the agency noted at one point that the standard ". . . has the effect of mandating use of fixed-load flashers, since special circuitry would be necessary to sense and indicate a failure in a variable-load system." (39 Fed. Reg. 20063.) Certain suppliers have interpreted, out of context, this quoted passage as meaning that variable load flashers can no longer be marketed in the automotive aftermarket as replacement equipment for vehicles originally equipped with fixed load flashers.

In February of 1971, the Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA, communicated its view to our attorneys that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 -- and more specifically paragraph S4.5.6 of that regulation -- ". . . [does not intend] that a variable load flasher used as replacement for a fixed load flasher must provide the outage indication required by S4.5.6 for vehicles originally equipped with a fixed load flasher." Further, your office cautioned that Ideal ". . . should, in the interest of safety, either market variable load flashers only as replacement for like items or call prospective purchasers' attention to the fact that the flashers do not provide an outage indication." Ideal Corporation emphasizes at this time that its turn signal flasher products are clearly labeled in accordance with the foregoing recommendations of NHTSA.

Accordingly, the company seeks a confirming interpretation along the lines quoted above, or otherwise that "variable load flashers are permitted as replacement equipment by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 for any vehicle contemplated by Paragraph S2 of the Standard, where such devices shall operate in accordance with the appropriate Tables of the Standard." We would appreciate a written response to our request.

Sincerely,

Martin Rothfield -- General Manager, Flasher Division

Enclosure cc: Z. Taylor Vinson, Esquire (w/encl.)