ID: 1984-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: T.F. Palomba -- National Sales Manager, Empco Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to me seeking information on the applicability of certain Federal requirements to "non-highway tires." Specifically, you asked if the manufacturer of such tires is required to identify itself on the sidewall of those tires by molding a DOT identification number thereon, and whether such tires are subject to the Federal excise tax on tires. The DOT identification number must appear on all tires for use on motor vehicles, as explained below. The Department of Transportation has nothing to do with the collection of the Federal excise tax on tires. If you need further information on that subject, you should contact the Internal Revenue Service.

49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, sets forth certain marking requirements which must be met by all manufacturers and retreaders of tires, including the requirements in section 574.5 that a DOI identification number be molded on all new and retreaded tires. However, section 574.1 specifies that the requirements of Part 574 apply only to new and retreaded tires for use on motor vehicles. Hence, the question which must be answered to determine if the manufacturer must put a DOT identification number on a tire is whether the tire is for use on motor vehicles.

"Motor vehicle" is defined at 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails." If the tires you might import are for use on forklifts, earthmovers, or other types of mobile construction equipment intended and sold primarily for off-road use, the manufacturer is not required to mold a DOT identification number on the tires, since the tires would not be for use on motor vehicles. This is true even if these sorts of vehicles are incidentally used for highway travel from one job site to another.

If, on the other hand, the vehicles on which the tires are to be mounted are conventional on-road trucks simply being used off-highway, the manufacturer would be required to mold a DOT identification number onto the tires. The determination of whether the tires are for use on motor vehicles must be made initially by the manufacturer, but that determination is subject to review by this agency.

Should you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

SINCERELY,

May 15, 1984 OCC 598

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. Attn: Frank A. Berndt

This letter is being written to you pursuant to my recent phone conversation with Mr. T.L. Moore of your office.

We at Empco Industries, through Nissho Iwai American Corporation in Los Angeles, are negotiating with Rekord Rubber products factory, Beograd, Yugoslavia, to import their line of tractor, farm, industrial and earthworks tires. (See attached brochure) on file in Chief Counsel's office.

Rekord is now exported to 30 countries and plans to expand into the United States market. In addition to no F.E.T. it is our understanding that a D.O.T. number is also not applicable to non-highway tires.

Would you please confirm this in writing, to my attention, that we are correct in our interpretation of these important factors pertaining to F.E.T. and D.O.T. requirements. In the event we consummate this agreement with Rekord Rubber Factory it would be necessary to have this information as a permanent record in our file.

EMPCO INDUSTRIES

T.F. Palomba Nitto National Sales Mgr.

CC: K. HIRATA; NISSHO IWAI

ID: 1984-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David W. Allen; NHTSA

TO: Morton; Lewis; King & Krieg

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

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

Dear Mr. Lewis:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 22, 1984

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

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

Dear Mr. Burndt:

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

MORTON, LEWIS, KING & KRIEG

Charles B. Lewis

CBL/bs

ID: 1984-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Eugenio Alzati -- General Director, Ferrari S.p.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Eng. Eugenic Alzati General Director Ferrari S.p.A. 41100 Moodena Viale Trento Triesta, 31 ITALY

This responds to your letter to Mr. Steed, the Administrator of this agency, asking that Ferrari be allowed to petition for a low volume exemption from the generally applicable passenger automobile fuel economy standards. Ferrari had filed a petition asking such a request for its 1978 model year vehicles, but was ruled ineligible for a low volume exemption because Ferrari was controlled by Fiat, S.p.A. Now that Fiat has stopped importing vehicles into the US, you stated your belief that Ferrari is in the same position as Naserati, which has been ruled eligible to apply for low volume exemption. I need some further information to determine if Ferrari should be considered eligible to film a petition for a low volume exemption.

By way of background, section 502(c) of the Motor Vehicle information and Cost Savings Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. (2002)(c) provides:

On application of a manufacturer who manufactured (whether or not in the US) fewer than 10,000 passenger automobiles in the second model year proceding the model year for which the application is made, the Secretary may, by rule exempt such manufacturer from (the generally applicable fuel economy standards).

To determine whether Ferrari manufactures fewer that 10,000 passenger automobiles, it is necessary to interpret and apply sections 501(9) and 503(c) of the Act. Section 501(9) specifies: the term "manufacturer" (sic) (except for purposes of section 502(c)) means to produce or assemble in the customs territory of the US, or to import." Section 503(c) reads as follows:

(c) Any reference in this part to automobiles manufactured by a manufacturer shall be deemed-- (1) to include all automobiles manufactured by persons who control, are controlled by, or are under common control with, such manufacturer; and (2) to exclude all automobiles manufactured (within the meaning of paragraph (1) during a model year by such manufacturer which are exported prior to the expiration of 30 days following the end of such school year.

As you noted in your letter, this agency has determined that Naserati is eligible to file a petition for a low volume exemption under section 502(c) of the Act, even though that company is under common control with Nuova Innocenti, S.p.A., which manufactures more than 10,000 passenger automobiles annually. This petition was allowed because NHTSA believes that the term "manufacture" in section 503(c) means to produce or assemble in the US, or to import into the US. Since none of the Nuova Innocenti automobiles are imported into the US, NHTSA concluded that only Naserati's worldwide production should be counted to determine whether that company was eligible for a low volume exemption.

Your situation is potentially similar to the Maserati situation, if the current importers of what formerly were the Fiat X1/9 and Spider 2000 were not found to be under the control of Fiat S.p.A. To make this determination, I will need answers to the following questions:

1. State whether Fiat S.p.A. owns any stock in either industrie Pininfarina S.p.A. or Carrozeria Bertone. If so, please state the extent of such holdings (both in number of shares and the percentage of total shares outstanding).

2. State whether the models which are sold in the US by Pininfarina and Bartone are sold in any other countries. If so, please state whether those models are marketed as Fiats, or whether they are marketed as Pininfarinas and Bartones.

3. State whether the components used by Pininfarina and Bartone when assembling these automobiles are manufactured by those companies or by another company. If any of the components are manufactured by Fiat S.p.A. or any of its subsidiaries, please identify and list each of these components.

4. Your letter had a Feb. 14 l983 letter from Fiat of North America to the Environmental Protection Agency attached thereto. On page 2 of that letter, the following sentence appears: "We would also like to advise you that we will officially be helping Industrie Pininfarine S.p.A. and Carrozeria Bertone in dealing with certification matters in accordance with instructions received from them and Fiat Auto S.p.A." Please detail any and all assistance Fiat of North America currently provides to Pininfarine and Bertone, what assistance was formerly provided, and when the official assistance was ended, if it has been ended.

5. Indicate whether Fiat currently provides any engineering, design, or servicing advice or assistance to Pininfarine and Bertone in connection with the 21/9 or Spider 2000 models. If so, indicate the motors and frequency of such assistance.

The agency will make a prompt determination of Ferrari's eligibility to file for an exemption under section 502(c) of the Act when we receive your answers to these questions. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/01/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Intec -- Christopher Moore

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Christopher Moore Intec 23132 La Cadena Languna Hills, California 92653

This responds to your April 24, 1984 letter regarding the installation of a closed circuit television viewing system in new vehicles, as an alternative to rearview mirror systems. The television system provides a view of the area behind the vehicle from a monitor screen placed on or near the dash.

As you note in your letter, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 111 specifies the use of rearview mirrors to provide improved rearward and side visibility in new motor vehicles. No provision is made for alternative means of compliance such as closed circuit television systems, so such alternative systems are not authorized. However, the closed circuit system could be used as a supplement to a mirror system which meets the requirements of Standard 111.

The only options available to a vehicle manufacturer seeking to use a closed circuit system as a replacement for the required mirror system would be to file a petition to amend the standard or a petition for an exemption from the standard. Requirements applicable to these petitions are set forth in Title 49 of the Code af Federal Regulations, Parts 552 and 555, respectively. These petitions are only granted in the limited circumstances set forth in those regulations.

If you have further questions on this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 24, 1984

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are the manufacturers of the INTEC "Car Vision" System, a closed circuit television system for vehicular applications. The system is used extensively in the recreational vehicle industry, on refuse and construction equipment and various other commerical vehicles.

Recently, we have had an inquiry from a foreign auto manufacturer via Chrysler Corporation asking about the system for automobiles. The company wishes to replace the existing mirrors with CCTV rearview system but was not familiar with the applicable laws.

After discussing the situation with Mr. Michael Finkelstein, the Associate Administrator for Research and Development and his associate Mr. Robert Henderson, they suggested we talk to your office. Our question is to what extent can a CCTV system replace or enhance the rearview mirrors on an Automobile? We know the current NHTSA Standard No. 111 specifies requirements for rearview mirrors, but no mention of alternatives is provided. Would a CCTV system be a possible replacement?

Enclosed is our sales brochure which outlines the system's technical specifications. We are recommending to Chrysler that a chip camera be substituted for the standard tube model. Chip cameras are not subject to tube burn and are durable enough for vehicular applications.

After you have had a chance to review our literature. I look forward to discussing further the system and any comments and suggestions regarding the law.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Sincerely,

INTEC

Christopher Moore Enclosures Sales CM/gw Attachment --

INTEC CAR VISION

"A must to ensure safety on any large vehicle"

(Insert Diagram)

INTEC'S Car Vision can prevent accidents and ensure safety.

INTEC'S Car Vision can prevent traffic accidents by providing the driver in a large vehicle to see backward clearly when changing lanes, backing-up or when towing any other vehicle. With the aid of Intec's Car Vision, the diver can confirm that the tow hitch is in place and that the vehicle he is towing is alright. The field of view of the Car Vision is from directly downward to the rear bumper to outwards 7 times the height of the installed camera. See diagram with field of view height and width.

Attractive and Compact Monitor with distance grid on screen.

The TV Monitor installed in the divers section is attractive and compact in design. The Monitor can be surface mounted or recessed into the instrument panel. The Monitor has 2 modes brightness switch, one for bright sunshine and the other for night usage.

Shock-proof, vibration-proof and weather-proof construction.

The camera and monitor of INTEC'S Car Vision can withstand locks of 4.4 G's. The Camera does not resonate with any kind of vibration emitted by the vehicle. The Camera is completely weatherproof and can be used on tractors, road rollers and just about any self-propelled outdoor equipment with divers cabs or canopies to cover the monitor.

It serves as another eye for the driver.

On many occasions the diver must watch the situation in the rear, including the objects in a blind spot even when driving forward. For example, a tractor diver must watch what is ahead of him and also his tillage performance in the rear. The INTEC'S Car Vision permits him to see directly behind the vehicle and a lane to each side.

Ultra wide-angle lens yield remarkable wide view.

The ultra wide-angle lens of the Car Vision camera has a local length of only 6.5mm. Its field extends from directly below the lens downward to about 15m away from it horizontally. Because of this unique feature, the Car Vision can be used not only on vehicles but also on sea going vessels and aircrafts. Waterproofing permits all weather outdoor use of TV Camera.

The TV Camera has an airtight, waterproof, all-weather type case. It is extremely suitable as an outdoor-operated camera.

*Insert diagrams here

ID: 1984-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 7, 1984

FROM: WILLIAM R. WILLEN -- MANAGING ATTORNEY, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

TO: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/13/84 FROM WILLIAM R. WILLEN, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., TO FRANK BERNDT, NHTSA; [A26; REDBOOK 3; PART 556]

TEXT: Pursuant to your letter of July 3, 1984 and Part 573.5, we are submitting a Defect and Noncompliance Information Report regarding FMVSS No. 218 as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

1. Name of Manufacturer of Hondaline Helmets:

Bell Helmets, Inc.

Shoei Safety Helmet Corp.

Name of Manufacturer of Hondaline Headsets:

Clarion Corporation of America

Panasonic Industrial Company

Division of Matsushita

Electric Company of America

2. Identification of Helmets Containing the Noncompliance: Mfg. Model Hondaline Helmet Name Model Year Bell Star International Road Race, Hawk 1982 Bell Tourstar Tour Sport, Hawk 1982 Shoei S-12 & S-22 Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Custom, Stag & Hawk 1982 " Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1981 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1981 " Custom, Stag & Hawk 1981

Mfg. Model Hondaline Helmet Name Model Year Shoei S-22 & ER-5 Aspencade, Stag & Hawk 1983 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1983 " Britestripe, Stag & Hawk 1983 Bell Star International Road Race, Hawk 1983 Bell Tourstar Tour Sport, Hawk 1983 Shoei S-22 & ER-5 Aspencade, Stag & Hawk 1984 " Interstate, Stag & Hawk 1984 " Tour Sport, Stag & Hawk 1984 Shoei ER-5 Modified Super Sport, Hawk 1984

3. Total Number of Helmets Containing the Noncompliance:

All Hondaline helmets which have the headsets installed. However, our records indicate approximately 20,000 headsets have been distributed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

4. The Percentage of Helmets Estimated to Contain the Noncompliance:

100% of those helmets which have the headsets installed but not more than 20,000.

5. A Description of the Defect or Noncompliance, Including both a Brief Summary and a Detailed Description, with Graphic Aids as Necessary, of the Nature and Physical Location (if applicable) of the Defect or Noncompliance:

Audio speakers fitted to the interior of motorcycle helmets distributed by American Honda Motor Co., Inc. do not comply with the requirements of FMVSS 218. Section 5.5 of FMVSS 218 states, in pertinent part: "A helmet shall not have any rigid projections inside its shell."

6. In the Case of a Defect, A Chronology of all Principle Events that were the Basis for the Determination that the Defect Related to Motor Vehicle Safety, Including a Summary of all Warranty Claims, Field or Service Reports, and Other Information, with their Dates of Recepit:

Not Applicable.

7. In the Case of a Noncompliance, the Test Results or other Data on the Basis of which the Manufacturer Determined the Existance of the Noncompliance: Late April, 1984 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc., was notified by Shoei of a possible noncompliance as a result of their recent awareness of the size and shape of the eternally mounted headsets.

May 1, 1984 - American Honda Motor Co., Inc. stopped all sales of the headset units and initiated an investigation.

May 17, 1984 - Meeting between American Honda and NHTSA personnel at the Office of Compliance.

June 14, 1984 - Petition to NHTSA for Exemption for InConsequential Noncompliance.

8. A Description of the Manufacturer's Program for Remedying the Noncompliance:

A Petition for Examination for Inconsequential Noncompliance was filed with your office on June 14, 1984.

9. Notices, Bulletins and Other Communication that relate to the Noncompliance: Not Applicable.

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