ID: 1984-2.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Z. Taylor Vinson; NHTSA

TO: Memorandum - Interpretations file

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Subject: Standard No. 218 - "Rigid Projection"

From: Z. Taylor Vinson Senior Staff Attorney

To: Interpretations File

Paragraph S5.5 Projections of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 states in pertinent part: "A helmet shall not have any rigid projections inside its shell." The term "rigid projections" does not appear to have been interpreted up to now.

The Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has brought to our attention a type of helmet which has a lever inside the helmet, below the shield, by which the visor shield is released to open. It has also procured another type of helmet which comes equipped with a headset. Inside the helmet are two speakers, made of hard rubber, which fasten into the shell. Each speaker is roughly an inch in height. Its shape is odd, basically eliptical, and about 1 1/2 inches at its longest point. OVSC has asked whether the lever and the speakers are "rigid projections" prohibited by the standard.

Assuming that the lever is made of either plastic or hard rubber, it would appear to be "rigid" in the sense of "unyielding," as are the speakers. The speakers do not lie flush with the shell or liner but just out an inch from their mounting points, and would appear to "project" in the normally understood sense of the word. The lever presumably also does not lie flush in the inner chin area of the helmet. Rigid projections are allowed on the exterior of a helmet provided that "they shall not protrude more than .19 inch" and "are limited to those required for operation of essential accessories." But neither the lever nor speakers could meet both criteria were they externally mounted, leading a fortiori to the conclusion that, internally mounted, they are prohibited.

OVSC says that motorcycle helmet headsets are illegal in at least 5 states.

ID: 1984-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cibie/Marchal -- G. Couffinhal

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. G. Couffinhal Cibie/Marchal 17, rue Henri Gautier 93012 Bobigny Cedex France

This is in reply to your letter of April 19, 1984, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency. With respect to the standardized light source socket for replaceable bulb headlamps, you have asked whether a bulb socket design with a "bottom view" diameter of 29.7 mm. etc. would be acceptable.

As you have noted, Dimension P of Figure 3-7 and 3-8 of Standard No. 108 specifies a millimeter dimension of "(28.75 to 28.65)". The dimension of your design exceeds this figure, and is therefore noncompliant with requirements intended to insure proper function with standardized replaceable light sources. It is not permitted by Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

17, rue Henri Gautier 93012 Bobighy Cedex Telephone (1) 843.93.70 - Telex 210 323 F

N.H.T.S.A. Mr. Richard Van IDERSTINE

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards Room 5307 400 Seventh St., SW WASHINGTON DC 20590 - USA -

Le 19 Avril 1984

Dear Richard

CIBIE requests interpretation concerning the interchangability drawing of the headlamp bulb assembly socket (In reflector) figure 3-7 of the Federal Register - Volume 48 Number 191 - Dated Friday September 30, 1983.

We draw your attention to the bottom view dimension "P" which appears to identify a circle of diameter 28,70 +/- ,005 mm. We would request your opinion about the enclosed drawing dated April 13th 1984 showing three arcs of circle with a diameter of: 29,7 + 1 + 0 mm.

The reason for this request is quite simply in order to obtain a better injection gate in the mould.

This design peculiarity has no effect upon the requirements as laid down by the NHTSA for either the correct installation of the bulb nor the hermeticity of the head light unit.

For information please find enclosed a copy of our drawing E 3277-80 which illustrates the nature of our request.

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

Yours sincerely,

G. COUFFINHAL

COPY: 030 - M. GERARD A36 - M. DORLEANS 039 - Mme THAIN 050 - M. J. MARSHALL

********INSERT GRAPHIC********

COUPE A

ID: 1984-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. P.O. Box 3951 Troy, Michigan 48007-3951

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 25, 1984, asking two questions with respect to the humidity test for replaceable bulb headlamps specified in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

With reference to paragraph S6.8, you mention the relative humidity figure of 90 +/- 10%, and your interpretation that the six-hour cycle of the test should be run at 90% and that the 10% tolerance "is intended to cover any drift in the instrumentation, controls and the process of generating the humidity." We concur that this is a reasonable interpretation of this requirement.

You have also asked when the headlamp must be inspected after the humidity test, as paragraph S4.1.1.36(d)(7) is silent on this point. It is your interpretation that this inspection must occur directly following the test, and before the photometrics of the lamp are measured, even though, in your view, it would be more convenient to check it after the photometric test. Your interpretation is correct; this inspection must occur within the 9 to 11 minutes specified for beginning the photometric test after completion of the humidity test.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

25 April, 1984

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Request for Interpretation -- FMVSS 108

Dear Sir:

With the Federal Register publication of June 2, 1983, environmental tests are now specified for replaceable bulb headlamps. We have two interpretations regarding the humidity test for these lamps for with we ask your concurrence.

1. Humidity Specification -- The humidity test, S6.8, requires that the lamp be subjected to 20 consecutive six-hour cycles at a relative humidity of 90 +/- 10% and then soaked for 1 hour in lower temperature and humidity. It is Volkswagen's interpretation that the six-hour cycle portion of the humidity test should be run at 90% and that the tolerance of +/- 10% is intended to cover any drift in the instrumentation, controls and the process of generating the humidity.

2. Inspection - Sections 4.1.1.36(d)(7) requires that after the humidity test in accordance with S6.8, that "the inside of the headlamp show no evidence of delamination or moisture, fogging or condensation", and the lamp must meet the photometric requirements. The section does not, however, specify exactly when the inspection is to take place.

It is Volkswagen's interpretation that the regulations require the inspection to take place immediately after the completion of the final one hour portion (30% relative humidity) of the humidity cycle and before the photometric measurements. This is not very practical (because of the 10 +/- 1 minute limitation on beginning the photometric tests), and inspection after the photometric measurement would be much more convenient, however we have reached this conclusion based upon our reading of the regulatory language.

Your prompt response to this request will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

JPS/bLc

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John C. Bobak -- President, Crest Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John G. Bobak President Crest Industries, Inc. 3841 13th Street Wyandotte, MI 48192

This responds to your letter of May 9, 1984, regarding the application of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 212, Windshield retention and standard No. 216, Roof crush resistance to aftermarket windshield adhesives. Your specific question concerned a statement made by Kent Industries that its urethane windshield adhesive "meets and exceeds" those two standards.

You are correct in your understanding that Standards Nos. 212 and 216 only apply to newly manufactured motor vehicles. The standard establish a certain level of performance for those vehicles and do not set specifications for such individual vehicle components as windshield adhesive. In addition, neither of these standards apply to item of motor vehicle equipment, such as windshield adhesive, sold as aftermarket products.

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Sincerely Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel LETTER FROM JOHN G. BOBAK IS NOT LEGIBLE.

ID: 1984-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David W. Allen; NHTSA

TO: Orient Glass Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Y. Higuchi Executive Vice President Orient Glass, Inc. 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2430 Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Mr. Higuchi:

This responds to your letter of July 19, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You specifically asked whether a temporary haze which develops on a test specimen of glass-plastic glazing during Test No. 4, Boil test, constitutes a failure of that test. As explained below, the temporary haze would not be considered a failure of the boil test requirement.

As you correctly noted, Standard No. 205 requires glass-plastic glazing to pass the Test 4 boil test, of American National Standards Institute Z-26, which is incorporated by reference in our standard. As explained in the preamble to the November 16, 1983, final rule setting performance requirements for glass-plastic glazing, the purpose of the boil test is to ensure that the plastic layer of glass-plastic glazing does not delaminate when exposed to high temperatures and humidity.

You explained that during your test of a piece of glass-plastic glazing, a "haze developed all over the plastic side at the end of the test." You further stated that the "haze totally disappears in 24-36 hours" when the specimen is returned to "ordinary room temperature." Since the temporary haze does not result in a permanent change in the structure of the glazing, which would occur if the glazing delaminated, we do not consider the temporary haze to be a failure of the boil test. The glazing must, of course, comply with Test No. 17, Abrasion resistance, which is directly meant to limit haze.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

JULY 19, 1984

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (Attn: Mr. Edward Jettner)

Re: Glass-Plastic Glazing Materials

Dear Mr. Jettner:

The undersigned is writing this letter on behalf of Nippon Sheet Glass Co., Ltd. (Herein after referred as NSG) a potential manufacturer of "Glass-Plastic Glazing Materials" defined in Safety Standard NO. 205 Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205).

With reference to the amendment of Safety Standard NO. 205 Docket NO. 81-04: Notice 4 NSG understands that " Glass-Plastic Glazing " have to pass the Test N0.4 (Boil Test) provided in ANS Z 26. In regard of Test NO. 4 on "Glass-Plastic" NSG wants to confirm that the following interpretation is correct.

When NSG conducted the Test N0.4 on Securiflex, which was made by Saint Gobain Vitrage of France, haze developed all over the plastic side at the end of the test. NSG believes that this haze comes out due to the direct contact with boiling water for as long as two hours. NSG observed this haze totally disappeared in 24 - 36 hours when the said Glass-plastic specimens were kept at ordinary room temperature. NSG, accordingly, interprets this temporary haze shall not be considered as "Other defects" provided in ANS Z 26.

Your competent comments on NSG's observation and interpretation would be highly appreciated.

Truly yours,

Y. Higuchi Executive Vice President

cc: Mr. Mizutani (NSG) Mr. Todoroki (NSG)

ID: 1984-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. R. Kittle -- Director, Vehicle Safety and Emissions, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated July 20, 1984, for a determination that the noncompliance therein described with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of this standard requires that the specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Chrysler has provided labels on 11,500 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "P215-7OR15" but the correct information is "P205-75R15." However, Chrysler is mailing correct placards "on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Chrysler has remedied the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance no longer exists, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moct. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Chrysler has provided owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

SINCERELY,

July 20, 1984

Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed:

In accordance with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance, Chrysler Corporation herewith submits a Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of Section 151 of the Act and 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, on the grounds that the subject condition is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation was initially notified of this condition and Chrysler's intention to petition for exemption through our submission of a Noncompliance Information Report dated May 23, 1984.

Sincerely,

W. R. Kittle -- CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Enclosure

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

Applicant

Chrysler Corporation, located in Detroit, Michigan 48288 and incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Affected Vehicles

Exemption is sought for a total of approximately 11,500 vehicles produced by Chrysler Corporation for sale in the United States. The involved vehicles are 1984 Dodge Diplomat and Plymouth Gran Fury passenger cars produced from mid-September, 1983 through late-April, 1984.

Noncompliance for Which Exemption Is Sought

Chrysler Corporation petitions to be exempted from the notification, remedy, and further reporting requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a discrepancy in the minimum tire size designation exhibited by the tire placard provided on the subject vehicles as required by S4.3 of FMVSS 110, Tire Selection and Rims, on the basis that the discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety.

Specifically, the discrepancy is that the provided tire placard displays the recommended minimum tire size as P215/70R15, whereas it should designate P205/75R15 which is the actual size of the tire installed on these vehicles. All other information shown on the placard is correct. The enclosure shows copies of both the improper and proper placards for the subject vehicles.

Data, Views, and Arguments Supporting This Petition for Exemption

Chrysler's position that the subject discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety is based on the following evaluation factors:

1) The installed P205/75R15 tire is adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. Its load rating exceeds the maximum vehicle capacity loading on the tire by a substantial margin -- 21%.

2) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is also adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. It is listed in the Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles as an allowable tire, and is in fact specified as the minimum size tire for fleet versions of these vehicles.

3) The load carrying capacity of the placard designated P215/70R15 tire is greater than that of the installed P205/75R15 tire.

4) The subject placard information creates no concern regarding potential improper tire selection because: a) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is available and suitable for use on these vehicles.

b) Sidewalls of the installed tires display the intended P205/75R15 minimum size designation.

c) The Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles properly specifies the P205/75R15 tire as the minimum size tire.

5) Chrysler is not aware of any owner complaints, field reports, or allegations of hazardous circumstances relating to tire placard information on the subject vehicles.

6) Application of the incorrect placard to the subject vehicles was the result of an inadvertent design release error. A placard intended only for fleet vehicles was mistakenly also released for non-fleet vehicles.

7) Existence of the subject condition was detected during routine evaluation of a production vehicle. Chrysler then took immediate, expedited action to institute use of the correct placards for vehicle assembly plant installation.

8) Chrysler is mailing correct placards on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles shipped prior to production correction. This is to avoid confusing or misleading an owner who may rely on the placard information when selecting replacement tires.

Summary

We believe that the information provided herein clearly demonstrates that the effect of the subject discrepancy in tire placard information on the subject vehicles is inconsequential with respect to motor vehicle safety. It is Chrysler's evaluation that the discrepant information creates no safety-related concern with respect to either tire loading or replacement tire selection.

Existence of the discrepant tire placard information was totally inadvertant and not a deliberate attempt to evade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements. Upon discovery of the condition, Chrysler Corporation took immediate action to correct it in production and minimize the number of vehicles produced with the discrepant tire placard information.

Therefore, in spite of good faith and due care efforts by Chrysler Corporation, a number of production vehicles were manufactured and shipped with the discrepant tire placard information. Chrysler Corporation is notifying affected owners of the condition and providing them replacement placards on a customer satisfaction basis. We respectfully request that this Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act relative to these vehicles be granted.

[Illustrations Omitted]

Correct Placard

Wrong Placard Enclosure

ID: 1984-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/21/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wayne Ivie -- Manager, Support Section, Motor Vehicle Division Department of Transportation (Oregon)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 27, 1984, to Mr. Frank Turpin, which was forwarded to my office for reply, asking several questions concerning our regulations on certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The following discussions answer your questions.

You have asked first if there are any provisions in Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, for or against the use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are steady burning rather than rotating. You have been unable to answer this question by referrals either to Standard No. 108 or SAE materials. Because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act allows States and municipalities to impose higher standards than the Federal ones for vehicles procured for their own use (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), the agency has generally deferred to the judgment of governmental bodies in their equipment specifications.

You have not stated whether the blue warning lamps would be supplemental to the vehicle's existing lighting, or replacing some item of the vehicle's original equipment. If the lighting is supplemental (e.g., roof-mounted as are the warning lamps on police vehicles in this area), Standard No. 108 permits it if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that is required by the standard (paragraph S4.1.3). Thus, a roof-mounted lamp, whether steady-burning or rotating, would appear permissible. If, however, the warning lamp was adjacent to a stop lamp or headlamp, or replaced a lamp such as a taillamp, a question of impairment could arise, and the burden would be on a State to demonstrate it had adopted a higher standard of performance.

Your second question asked whether there is a specific statement in our regulations or elsewhere which prohibits the attaching of materials to vehicle windshields and windows. The following discussion explains the effect of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, and section 108(a)(2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) on tinting films and other materials placed on windshields and other windows.

Pursuant to the 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.

Tinting and other films 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.

A vehicle manufacturer or a dealer may place the film on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle only if that manufacturer or dealer is able to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Purchasers of a new vehicle may alter the vehicle as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

However, vehicle owners may not go to a commercial establishment to have darkly tinted films installed for them. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the 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. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film on a vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the light transmittance or abrasion resistance of the vehicle glazing. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

You mentioned that you have recently received an inquiry from the U.S. Air Force concerning the placement of identification decals on a vehicle. We have received a similar inquiry and I am enclosing a copy of our response.

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

ENC.

Department of Transportation MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION

July 27, 1984

NHTSA

Attention: Francis J. Turpin

Dear Frank:

We would appreciate your help on some questions we have concerning federal regulations/requirements on certain vehicle equipment items.

1. Are there any provisions for or against use of blue warning lamps on police vehicles, if the lamps are "steady burning" -- non flashing or rotating? We were unable to find any information regarding this in FMVSS 108 or in the SAE Standards covering vehicle lighting.

2. Is there a specific "statement" in the federal regulations or elsewhere that prohibits attaching material to vehicle windshields/windows? Presently it is not allowed by our state laws, if "the material prohibits of impairs the ability to see into or out of the vehicle." The availability of various window tinting materials and screening causes constant inquiries from law enforcement, manufacturing companies, repair shops, and individuals regarding this law. Also, we have recently received inquiries from the U. S. Air Force on placing their Identification Decals on windshields of Air Force personnels' private vehicles.

We respond to the window glazing inquiries with information from FMVSS 205 and ANSI Z26. (Ie, the 70% light transmittance requirements.) Also, we mention Section 108 (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, concerning rendering inoperative of vehicle equipment. But, we would like to also be able to provide a definite federal prohibition, with possible penalties, etc.

Thank you for any assistance you can give us.

Wayne Ivie Manager, Support Section

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: 1984-3.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: P. Winkler-Doman -- Office of the General Counsel, Ford Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. P. Winkler-Doman Office of the General Counsel Ford Motor Company The American Rd. Dearborn, MI 48121

Dear Ms. Winkler-Doman: This responds to your July 19, l984, letter regarding the timing of petitions to amend average fuel economy standards. As you know, the agency has taken the position that Ford's petition to amend the l984 and l985 light truck average fuel economy standards was not timely filed with regard to the 1984 model year.

A model year is presumed to begin sometime in the autumn of the preceding calendar year (see Center for Auto Safety v. NHTSA, 710 F.2d 842 (D.C. Cir. l983)). The Ford petition was filed on November 21, l983, and amended on January 20, l984. Since model year l984 began in the fall of l983, it is clear that the l984 light truck standards could not have been amended in response to the Ford petition prior to the start of that model year.

Section 502(b) of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 2002(b) requires the Secretary of Transportation to issue average fuel economy standards for light trucks for each model year beginning with l979. These standards must be set at the "maximum feasible average fuel economy level" and must be prescribed at least "18 months prior to the beginning of" the model year to which they apply. 1d.

Section 502(f)(1) of the Act provides that the "Secretary may, from time to time, amend" any light truck fuel economy standard "as long as such standard, as amended, meets the requirements" of section 502(b). An amendment which makes standards more stringent must be promulgated "at least l8 months prior to the beginning of the model year to which such amendment will apply." See section 502(f)(2), 15 U.S.C. 2002(f)(2). With regard to any timing requirements applicable to amendments which make standards less stringent, section 502(f) is not explicit but could be interpreted in two ways. The language in paragraph ( ) (1) authorizing amendments "from time to time" could be interpreted to permit amendments at any time. Alternatively, the language in that paragraph requiring that amendments to standards must comply with requirements applicable to their original enactment could be interpreted to impose the l8 month rule, one of the requirements of section 502(b), on amendments to reduce standards. Under the letter approach, all amendments would have to be issued at least l8 months prior to the start of the effected model year.

Where a statutory provision is ambiguous on its face, rules of statutory construction dictate that the legislative history of the provision must be considered. See Sutherland, "Statutory Construction," 4th Ed., section 48.01. An Act's Conference Report has been considered the "most persuasive evidence of congressional intent" in this regard. Denby v. Schwelker, 671 F.2d 507, 510 (D.C. Cir. l981). The Conference Report on th Energy Policy and Conservation Act (the statute which added the fuel economy provisions to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act) contains the following discussion:

Average fuel economy standards prescribed by the ST (Secretary of Transportation) for passenger automobiles in model years after l980, for non-passenger automobiles, and for passenger automobiles manufactured by manufacturers of fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles may be amended from time to time as long as each such amendment satisfies the l8 month rule-i.e., any amendment which has the effect of making an average fuel economy standard more stringent must be promulgated at least l8 months prior to the beginning of the model year to which such amendment will apply. An amendment which has the effect of making an average fuel economy standard less stringent can be promulgated at any time prior to the beginning of the model year in question.

See Sen. Rep. 94-516, 94th Cong., lst Sess. (1979) at 157. (Emphasis added.)

Although this discussion does not expressly prohibit amendments after the start of a model year, the last sentence certainly implies that result. If no limit on the timing of relaxatory amendments had been intended, The underlined sentence would have been ended after the words "...promulgated at any time.." The agency believes that Congress intended to provide certainty and finality for all parties concerned with regard to the levels of standards, to permit planning by the manufacturers and the agency through cutting off amendments once a model year has begun.

Ford has argued that a failure to permit amendments to fuel economy standards after the start of a model year places manufacturers in a difficult position, since unanticipated sales trends during the model year might impair its ability to comply. However, the agency is also concerned that amendments made after production has begun have some characteristics of ex postfacto law. We believe that Congress intended standards to be established before production begins, to encourage the achievement of particular fuel economy levels rather than simply rectifying past conduct. Chrysler Corporation has expressed similar concerns in its comments in our pending light truck rulemaking, noting that late changes in standards levels could adversely effect manufacturers who planned to meet the original levels. Therefore, we must reaffirm our previous position that petitions to amend fuel economy standards must be submitted in time to permit necessary rulemaking to be completed prior to the start of the model year.

Ford has also requested that the agency specify the precise data by which petitions to amend fuel economy standards must be filed. As noted above, the single court to address the issue has stated only that a given model year begins in the fall of the preceding calendar year (e.g., fall l984 is the beginning of the l985 model year). In its final rule establishing fuel economy reporting requirements, the agency took the position that, in the absence of my single "annual production period," the model year would be deemed to coincide with the calendar year, e.g., the l985 model year would begin January l, l985. See l9 U.S.C. 2001 (12) and 42 FR 62374 (December 12, l977). A further complicating issue is the time necessary to conduct a rulemaking proceeding. Since any amendments to standards must be promulgated prior to the start of the model year, petitions must be filed in time to permit the agency to complete a rulemaking proceeding on the petition prior to the start of the model year. The time necessary for such a proceeding will vary greatly depending on the complexity and controversiality of the issues involved. A proceeding would involve agency analysis of the petition, preparation and publication of the necessary analysis of comments, and preparation and publication of the documentation necessary to accompany the final decision. Such a proceeding could not in any case be completed in less than 6 months. The various uncertainties involved make it impossible for the agency to specify a precise date after which petitions will not be accepted. However, it is clear that the Ford petition, which was filed in November of the preceding calendar year, was not timely. Petitions regarding a particular model year's standards should be submitted no later than the early part of the preceding calendar year, and preferrably before that time.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/29/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Iwase

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 29, 1985 Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken Japan Dear Mr. Iwase: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1985, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Frank Berndt, asking for a clarification of requirements for motorcycles equipped with two headlamps. You have informed us that your two-headlamp design complies with the photometric requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (i.e., the at focus and out of focus tests of SAE J584) when the photometric measurements are made with reference to the photometric reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. However, if this measurement is made at the combined axis, the combined maximum value of the upper beam will exceed 75,000 candela. Photometric measurements are to be made with reference to the photometric reference axis of the individual headlamp unit. Under Standard No. 108, however, the maximum candlepower of each unit on the upper beam is not to exceed 75,000. The fact that the combined maximum value of your system exceeds 75,000 candlepower. However, if the motorcycle headlamp is one consisting of two bulbs in a single housing, then the measurement is made at the combined axis of the two bulbs and the combined candlepower of this two-bulb single headlamp cannot exceed 75,000 candlepower. I hope that this answers your question. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-04.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Enere H. Levi, Esq. -- Office of the Attorney General, American Samoa Government

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Enere H. Levi Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General American Samoa Government Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Thank you for your letter of September 18, 1985, to Mr. Hal Paris of this agency requesting information on the bumper requirements that apply to small trucks. You also asked about the effect of our standards on vehicles sold in your Territory. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I hope the following discussion answers your questions.

Under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) and the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), we have issued Part 581, Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581), a copy of which is enclosed. The Part 581 standard applies only to passenger motor vehicles. Section (2)(1) of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901(1)) defines a "passenger motor vehicle" as a vehicle designed to carry 12 persons or less, except a motorcycle or a truck not designed primarily as a passenger carrier. We would not consider a small utility truck to be a passenger motor vehicle since it is not designed primarily as a passenger carrier, but is instead designed primarily to carry cargo. Therefore, under Federal law, a small utility truck may be sold without any rear bumper.

Both the Vehicle Safety Act and the Cost Savings Act apply to motor vehicles manufactured in or imported into the United States. Both Acts define the term "State" to include American Samoa (15 U.S.C. 1391(8) and 1901(16)). Therefore, the requirements of the Part 581 standard would apply to vehicles sold in American Samoa.

If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

September 18, 1985

Hal Paris U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Paris:

I am writing to request any information that your office has regarding the application of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 USC S1381, et seq., to small utility trucks, such as Toyota, Datsun or similar makes.

In specific, what are the requirements, if any, for such vehicles to have rear bumpers? Here in American Samoa, small trucks are being sold without bumpers. We are concerned about the safety of such vehicles, especially since Samoan families are large and the standard practice is to load the entire family into the back carry area. In the event of a rear end collision, the dangers are obvious.

Our legal research has produced conflicting interpretations of federal law and its application to our Territory. Furthermore, we have been lead to believe that small trucks are presently being sold in the mainland without bumpers.

Could you please enlighten us as to your official position on this issue, and provide the relevant legal authority. We thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, ENERE H. LEVI Assistant Attorney General EHL/fst