ID: 1982-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/30/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ARMOND CARDARELLI -- DIRECTOR, SAFETY EQUIPMENT SERVICE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: NOA-30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cardarelli:

The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to a practice of the AAMVA which we believe should be reviewed.

Recently we received copies of Certificate of Equipment Approval Nos. 800643, 800641, 800642, and 800193, rendered "Candle Power Inc." of Rockville, Maryland. In each instance, the Certificate describes the item as a "Motorcycle Headlamp Unit," specifies its use "on Motorcycles" and states that the unit is "in compliance with the United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108." It is the implications of AAMVA's certification of compliance that we question.

First of all, we believe that a legal certification of conformance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards can be made only by the manufacturer of the unit. We believe that the role of the independent test laboratories is to provide data indicating compliance upon which a manufacturer can base its certification, but that a single test report cannot alone establish certification. It has been the policy of this agency never to judge conformance on the basis of test results of a single lamp because of the multitude of test points to be met and variables in the manufacturing process and the quality control procedures of the individual manufacturers. Indeed, the agency has said that test failures will not lead to a noncompliance determination if they are "random" or "occasional." We therefore believe it is inappropriate for the AAMVA Certificate to state that a lamp conforms to Standard No. 108 when that statement is made on the basis of a single test report submitted by the manufacturer and when it is intended to cover production for five years after the issuance of the Certificate. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the test report showed the unit in compliance with appropriate SAE requirements.

P2

With respect to Candlepower's headlamps, they are unsealed units which we believe to be intended primarily for use on passenger cars but which may also meet the requirements of J584 for motorcycle use. In our litigation presently pending against importers of these headlamps, we are taking the position that the manufacturer, with knowledge of the capacity for dual use of these headlamps, must certify conformance (in the words of 15 U.S.C. 1413) "with all applicable safety standards" which means standards applicable to both passenger car and motorcycle headlamps. We do not approve of a split certification whereby a headlamp capable of two end uses is certified only for one. We therefore view the AAMVA statement of compliance with Standard No. 108 inappropriate from this standpoint as well. On the other hand, it would not be inappropriate for the Certificate to state that the unit complies with SAE J584.

We request that AAMVA review its practice with regard to statements of Federal conformity on its approval certificates and that you provide us with its view.

Sincerely,

ID: 1982-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/31/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION NOA-30

Mr. Dick Premo Superior Division Sheller-Globe Corporation 1200 East Kibby Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your telephone call of March 10, 1981, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You asked two questions about the requirements applicable to a vehicle which is completed as a school bus: (1) What symbol or words must be used to identify the controls of a heater which is placed in a vehicle, either next to a door or in the rear of the vehicle, for the purpose of providing heating capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary heating system, and (2) what symbol or words must be used to identify the controls of a fan which is mounted along a vehicle is instrument panel for the purpose of providing defogging capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system. You stated that the controls for both the additional heaters and the fan are located on a panel mounted on the vehicle 's engine cover, next to the driver, and that the controls are illuminated.

Both the heaters and the fan must be identified as provided in Standard No. 101. Section S5 of Standard No. 101 states that each vehicle that is subject to the standard and is manufactured with any control listed in Section S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 must comply with the requirements of the standard regarding the location, identification and illumination of such controls. Controls for both heating systems and defrosting/defogging systems are listed in column 1 of Table 1. Since the additional heaters" comprise part of the completed vehicle's heating system and the fan comprises part of the completed vehicle 's defogging system, the controls for those devices are subject to Standard No. 101's requirements.

I will first discuss the requirements for the heater controls. If the heater has a fan for which there is a control, it must be identified by the symbol specified in Table 1 of the standard. Identification must be provided for each function of any heating system control and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. The standard does not specify the means of such identification other than to require that it be in word form unless color coding is used. Also, if color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the standard specifies that the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

Section S5.2.1 states:

. . .any hand operated control listed in column 1 of Table 1 that has a symbol designated in column 3 shall be identified by that symbol. Such a control may, in addition, be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Any such control for which no symbol is shown in Table 1 shall be identified by the word or abbreviation shown in column 2. Additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity. The identification shall be placed on or adjacent to the control. . . Neither a symbol nor identifying words are listed in Table 1 for the controls of a heating system, with the exception of the control for a heating fan.

Section S5.2.2 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of . . .any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue.

The requirements for the defogging fan are simpler. Table 1 does specify a symbol for a defrosting/defogging system. Since the fan constitutes a part of the completed vehicle' s defogging system, that symbol must be used to identify the control.

While it is not required by the standard, we suggest that you use words in addition to the symbol to indicate that the fan is for the purpose of providing defogging capability in addition to that provided by the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system. For example, you might use the words "Auxilliary Defog" or "Aux. Defog." The use of such words in addition to the symbol would help prevent a driver seeing the control identification from incorrectly concluding that the control operated the vehicle's primary defrosting/defogging system.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

April 2, 1982

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy President, Automotive Research and Certification Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, MA 01923

Dear Mr. McEnvoy:

This is in reply to your letter of December 18, 1981, appealing our denial of your request to import five different German specification 1982 BMW passenger cars under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). This provision allows vehicles not meeting the Federal safety and bumper standards to be imported for test purposes for a limited time without the necessity of conforming them to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

You have asked us to reconsider our original decision or alternatively to allow the importation of two of the five vehicles. You have also agreed to perform all safety compliance work within 30 days of receipt of the five test vehicles, allowing you to carry out your test programs for developing complying emissions and bumper systems.

Upon review of your petition, the agency is agreeable to allowing you to import a total of five vehicles under the provision of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii), without insisting upon immediate compliance with the bumper requirements, provided that you will agree in writing that the vehicles will be brought into compliance with then existing bumper requirements if they are sold to third parties. This will allow you a maximum of 120 days to bring the vehicles into compliance with safety requirements.

The bumper standard is primarily a property damage standard, rather than a safety standard, and the Administrator has the authority to waive it completely for vehicles imported into the United States. Although this authority has not been exercised or implemented in regulations, the temporary waiver which may be provided you is consistent with the intent of Congress, and allows both you and the agency to accomplish their goals. As a practical matter, the bumper standard may be amended in the near future to prescribe a more cost-effective level of performance and in that event your task of conforming the vehicles might be less difficult; we would not insist on conformance with the bumper standard in effect when the BMW's were manufactured.

I hope that this proposed solution is satisfactory to you.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

December 18, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1981, denying our request for permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

Your conclusion that "the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements" is in error. The purpose of our research, development, and testing is to insure that the motor vehicles which are imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x) are brought into full compliance with Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements and will remain in compliance with these requirements. It is felt that this purpose is indeed consistent with the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as well as that of the Environmental Protection Agency.

It is unlikely that our research, development and testing program will have any effect on the number of motor vehicles imported under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and 19 CFR 12.73(b)(5)(x). Since our proposed emission control system will be somewhat more expensive than those systems currently being used to enable non-certified imported automobiles to pass Federal emissions tests, will not become any easier or less expensive to import a non-certified motor vehicle. Similarly, if It was deemed feasible to modify the European bumper systems to comply with Federal bumper requirements (49 CFR Part 581), these modifications would most likely be more expensive than simply exchanging the European bumpers for U.S. style bumpers.

Your suggestion that we complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting our test program would, in effect, prevent us from carrying out that part of the program having to do with the bumper modifications. This is due to the fact that we must test different types of bumper support structures and shock absorbing units with the European bumpers in place. With the U.S. style bumpers installed, this would be impossible. We would, however, be agreeable to performing all of the safety related modifications, except for the addition of the U.S. style safety bumpers, upon receipt of the test vehicles. We expect that this work could be completed within 30 days of receipt of the test vehicles. This would allow us to carry out our test program while at the same time complying with all Federal safety requirements except the bumper standard.

We would also be agreeable to importing only two of the German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii), at this time. This would allow us to get our testing program underway and to demonstrate to the NHTSA that we truly are engaged in a research, development, and testing program. Once this had been done, we would then apply for permission to import the three remaining test vehicles.

Although our testing program will require some operation of the test vehicles on public highways, this operation will be minimal. We anticipate that each test vehicle will be driven not more than 3,000 miles for the duration of the test. These vehicles will be operated for testing purposes only, and will not be used for general transportation. Such limited operation certainly will not represent a safety or health hazard.

As you can see, we are agreeable to almost any conditions which will allow us to get this testing program underway. We therefore request that you reconsider our original request of October 19, 1981, for permission to import five motor vehicles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). As an alternative, we request that permission be granted for the importation of at least two of the five test vehicles listed in our letter of October 19, 1981, under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii). The test vehicles which we would want to import first are the BMW 323i and the BMW 635i.

Attached is a copy of the testing exemption granted by the EPA. Your prompt attention to our request would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Robert P. McEvoy President

RPM:smm

cc: Mr. Taylor Vinson

Enclosures

November 25, 1981

Mr. Robert P. McEvoy, President Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. 5 Orrantia Circle Danvers, Massachusetts 01923

Dear Mr. McEvoy:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1981, in which you requested a testing exemption to cover five (5) light-duty vehicles. The purpose of the test program is to develop a closed-loop emission system for use on BMW vehicles.

A testing exemption is hereby granted, subject to the terms and conditions of the enclosed Memorandum of Exemption. If Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. elects to accept the exemption, please notify this office by returning a signed copy of the Memorandum to this office within thirty days.

Very truly yours,

Timothy Fields, Jr., Chief Manufacturers Programs Branch Manufacturers Operations Division (EN-340)

Enclosure

ID: 1982-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Transportation Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 27, 1982, letter asking whether a vehicle which transports 10 or fewer persons could be classified as a bus if it is built with a traditional bus body. The vehicle transports fewer persons than normal, because it is designed for wheelchair occupants. The answer to your question is no.

The classification of a vehicle as a bus or a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle definitions of "bus" and "multipurpose passenger vehicle" in 49 CFR 571.3. A vehicle that transports the number of persons that you mentioned in your letter must be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle. The fact that the vehicle is designed as a bus has no relevance to its classification. The controlling factor is passenger capacity.

Since the vehicle would be a multipurpose passenger vehicle, it would be required to comply with all of the standards applicable to those vehicles. This would include complaince with Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

SINCERELY,

February 27, 1982

Office of Chief Counsil United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admn.

Dear Sir:

American Transportation Corporation manufacturers buses used on both school buses and as transit buses.

One of the small (under 10,000# GVWR) buses, when equipped for transporting non-ambulatory passengers in wheel chairs could reduce the passenger capacity to 10 persons or less. Since the bus body does not change, could this bus still be classified as a bus and not a multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV)?

If the classification should have to be MPV, would the entrance door and the special access door to the loading and unloading lift have to meet the performance requirements of FMVSS 206 for door locks and door retention components?

We would appreciate very much an early reply. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

E. M. Ryan, Sr. Project Engineer-Specifications

CC: TERRY HARRELL

ID: 1982-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/12/82; JANUARY 13, 1982

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter to Roger Tilton of this Office regarding the applicability of vehicle identification number (VIN) requirements to trailer kits manufactured by your company.

It is our view that these trailer kits must comply with the VIN requirements of FMVSS 115. Your kits contain all components necessary to assemble a complete trailer, and are advertised as capable of being readily assembled with simple tools such as screwdrivers and wrenches. We see no relevant basis for distinguishing between such kits and completed trailers for purposes of determining the applicability of FMVSS 115.

While the VIN requirements do provide anti-theft benefits, they also are important to this agency in administering the defect recall program as well as to State motor vehicle departments and insurance companies. Further, even if this agency exempted trailer kits from VIN requirements, purchasers of your kits would likely face difficulties when they attempt to register their trailers with the States. We expect most states to soon begin checking VIN's as part of the vehicle registration process, and vehicles without a VIN or with a nonconforming identification number might face rejection by the state motor vehicle departments notwithstanding a technical exemption from NHTSA. We feel that in the long run, the best and simplest solution is for vehicle manufacturers to assign a VIN which meets the requirements of FMVSS 115.

Should you still wish to seek an exemption from the standard, procedures for obtaining exemptions are set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555, a copy of which is enclosed. Such exemptions are available for not more than three years.

You should also be aware that certification labels must contain both the month and year of a vehicle's manufacture. See 49 CFR 567.5(b)(5). The copy of the label you sent us contains only the year of manufacture.

If you have further questions on this matter, feel free to contact us again.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

Pathfinder Auto Lamp Company

November 25, 1981

Roger Tilton -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: V.I.N. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPACT UTILITY TRAILER KITS

Dear Mr. Tilton:

In accordance with our telephone conversation of November 24, 1981, I have enclosed information on our trailer kit consisting of the following:

- Sales Brochure

- Picture of the Unit

- Copy of the Nameplate Label

- Copy of the M.S.O. (C.O.)

A question has occurred in one state regarding the application of FMVSS 115 (576.115) requirements for Vehicle Identification Numbers (V.I.N.) to these trailer kits. The problem being that to comply with the requirements of 115 would impose a workload on us that cannot be justified based on the unit volume and low selling cost of these units.

We have no problems in working with the various agencies in the several states and meeting their various legal, administrative, taxing, and construction requirements for these units, even though they represent a new or separate category in some cases. However, the 115 requirements present a burden which can cause restricted availability in jurisdictions imposing them. This is unfortunate for consumers in those locales, particularly since these units are a natural adjunct to down size cars with limited trunk space.

While the requirements of 115 are a definite improvement in regard to protecting motor vehicles and other high dollar items from theft, we feel that the requirements are not completely logical for these kits. The reason being that these units are low in dollar value at retail and are not a theft prone item. The latter is true especially prior to assembly since the kit still in the box is not very mobile due to the size and weight of the box. We therefore seek your assistance in resolving this matter since our customers are anxious to sell these units in all states.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter. Please feel free to call me if I may be of further help to you.

Very truly yours,

James S. Nasby -- Director of Engineering

enclosures (4)

COMPACTUTILITY TRAILER 1/2 TON CAPACITY

(Graphics omitted)

STORAGE

Unique design of recessed tail lights permits trailer to be easily stored in an upright position. This exclusive feature saves considerable storage space in garage, shed or basement.

CLAM SHELL

The 48 x 41 trailer frame is designed to accommodate most clam shell car top carriers. The rear cross member of the trailer frame adjusts to fit the various mounting spans of manufactured clam shell carriers.

FLAT BED

A versatile flat bed trailer can be built in minutes by simply bolting on a 48' x 41' plywood board to the trailer frame. Additional mounting holes are provided on all four sides of the frame to accommodate tie down cords.

EASY TO ASSEMBLE

All that is required to assemble the trailer is a screwdriver a (Illegible Word) allen wrench and two adjustable wrenches. The assembly time can be greatly reduced with the use of a 1/4" socket set and several open and wrenches.

(Graphics omitted)

Demountable wheel permits easy tire changing and lubrication. Spare tire available separately CT-1010 (02010)

This beautifully designed consumer oriented package contains self selling features which includes explicit application information and product specifies. The entire unit is packaged in a surprisingly compact box and measures 49 1/2" x 21 1/2" x 5 5/8".

Optional fenders constructed of heavy gauge steel are available as separate item. CT-1020(02020)

BOX

The versatility of the frame is enhanced to its utmost when converting the unit to a box trailer. Complete building plans are provided in the instruction manual which will make this an easy job for the "do it yourselfer."

WINTER USE

The 1,000 lb. load capacity of the trailer gives it a wide assortment of winter season uses ranging from hauling a snowblower to most snowmobiles. This added feature gives truth to the fact that it is truly an item for all four seasons.

MOTORCYCLE

The trailer frame can be easily converted to transport most motorcycles and bicycles. It is ideal for off road dirt bikes as well as family bicycle outings.

GARDEN TRACTOR

In whatever configuration the trailer frame is transformed, it can be used with most garden tractors. The compact utility trailer is at least less than 1/2 the cost of most standard garden tractor trailers and yet has greater universal application.

* Each trailer comes complete with easy to read assembly instructions.

* A certificate of origin, which is required in most states for title and licensing, is included with each trailer.

* The trailer is equipped with DOT approved class "A" lighting which meets legal requirements in all 50 states and Canada.

* Pathfinder's hub and sprindle are fully assembled with bearings and seal factory greased and installed.

Master Master Model IBM Carton Carton Carton No. No. Pack Weight Cube CT-1000 02001 1 125 3.39

MANUFACTURED BY Pathfinder Niles, IL, U.S.A. 60648

Date of Manufacturer: 1980

Model No.: CT 100

Serial No: 2275

GVWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

GAWR 1100 LBS. WITH 480/400x8 TIRES AT 60 P.S.I. COLD

MAXIMUM LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY 1000 LBS.

THIS VEHICLE CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF MANUFACTURE SHOWN ABOVE.

Manufacturer's Statement or Certificate OF ORIGIN TO A UTILITY TRAILER

The undersigned manufacturer hereby certifies that the new Trailer kit described below, the property of said manufacturer has been transferred this day of 19 on Invoice No. to whose address is

Trade Name of Trailer kit: Compact Utility Trailer

Serial No.

Shipping Weight: 123 lbs.

Maximum Load Carrying Capacity: 1,000 lbs.

G.A.R.W.: 1,100 lbs.

Date of Manufacture (and Model Year)

MONTH

YEAR

Series or Model Name: CT1000

No. Wheels: 2

Width: 40 (Illegible Word)

Length: 44"

G.V.W.R.: 1,100 lbs.

Other Data: Steel Construction Black

(Illegible Line)

Said manufacturer hereby certifies that this written instrument constitutes the first conveyance of said vehicle after its manufacture and that the manufacturer's serial number set forth above has not been and will not be used by the manufacturer on any other vehicle manufactured by said manufacturer, and that there are no other manufacturer's certificates issued by the manufacturer for the vehicle described above.

PATHFINDER AUTOLAMP CO. NILES, ILLINOIS 60648

MANUFACTURER

By:

(SIGN NAME TITLE OR POSITION)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1982-1.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Transportation; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 8, 1982, asking the current status of three-wheeled motor vehicles under the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

As you know from my letter of November 24, 1976, to HM Vehicles, a copy of which you enclosed, three-wheeled motor vehicles are classified as "motorcycles" under the standards. Obviously the configuration of a three-wheeled enclosed vehicle differs greatly from that of the two-wheeled machine that comes to mind when the word "motorcycle" is mentioned. As my 1976 letter indicates, the agency was seeking a more realistic regulatory scheme for three-wheeled vehicles, for obviously our motorcycle standards were written with two-wheeled vehicles in mind. But because three-wheeled vehicles did not comprise a significant part of the market, the agency decided that its priorities in motor vehicle safety lay elsewhere, and no change in the definition of "motorcycle" was ever adopted, and it still encompasses three-wheeled vehicles.

You have also asked whether a three-wheeled vehicle can be registered and inspected as a passenger car. Under the preemption provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), Pennsylvania is bound to treat three-wheeled vehicles as "motorcycles" in those areas that are covered by Federal safety standards that apply to motorcycles. Further, it may apply its own motorcycle standards in areas not covered by Federal standards. This means, for example, that Pennsylvania could not require a three-wheeled vehicle to have two headlamps since one is adequate under our Safety Standard No. 108. On the other hand, Pennsylvania could require a backup lamp device since Standard No. 108 contains no such requirement for motorcycles. Thus, it would seem that Pennsylvania should register and inspect these vehicles as motorcycles to the extent possible.

As a final comment, we favor the use of discretionary enforcement when literal enforcement may create disrespect for the law. We note the comment written on the "Free-Way II" sheet: "must wear a helmet." Our standards do not cover the use of helmets or apparel of operators but we can understand why the driver of an enclosed three-wheeled vehicle might not understand a citation for failure to wear a helmet. On the other hand, such a requirement appears perfectly reasonable for the operator of an open three-wheeler.

SINCERELY,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

March 8, 1982

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Attached is a letter from you to Mr. Edmonson, dated November 24, 1976, concerning a three-wheeled vehicle known as "Free-Way II". The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Vehicle Safety Division would like to know the current status of these types of vehicles in view of Federal regulations. If the vehicle is a motorcycle, can it be registered and inspected as a passenger car?

Please contact Kathy G. Phillips at (717) 787-2895 if you have any questions concerning this request. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter.

John A. Pachuta Director

Bureau of Traffic Safety Operations

(Graphics omitted)

"FREE-WAY II" STANDARD FEATURES:

1. Automotive lighting system 2. "Non-rusting" fiberglass body 3. Standard automotive controls and instruments 4. Large storage area 5. Smooth automatic transmission 6. Mid-engine or mid-motor design, gas, diesel or electric powered 7. Bucket seat -- room for temporary tandem seat 8. Large convenient door 9. Front wheel steering system 10. 350 degree protective steel frame at bumper height 11. Hydraulic drum brakes on all wheels 12. "340" engine, electric start 13. Electric windshield wiper

ID: 1982-1.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/13/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 26, 1981, requesting several interpretations of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. The answer to each of your questions is discussed below.

Your first question concerned section 3.3 of the standard, which among other things, requires that an "interior compartment door assembly located in . . . a side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . ." must remain closed when tested under certain conditions. You stated your belief that the requirement only applies to interior compartment doors located within the head impact area, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49. You asked if the area adjacent to a designated seating position is to be determined by projecting laterally from the head impact area for a designated seating position to the side panel next to it.

The impact protection requirement for interior compartment doors was added to the standard on October 25, 1968 (33 FR 15794). As explained in that notice, a copy of which is enclosed, the agency specifically denied requests to limit the interior compartment door requirement to doors located in the head impact area. The requirement is designed to provide protection to the head and other portions of an occupant's body that can be thrown against an interior compartment door opened by inertial forces in a crash. To accomplish the purpose of the standard, any interior compartment door, defined in Part 571.3 of Title 49, that is located in a side panel and is next to a designated seating position is covered by the requirements of section 3.3 of the standard.

You also asked how the term "instrument panel" is defined for the purposes of section 3.3 of the standard. You are correct that the term refers to the panel below the windshield which is used to mount the speedometer, other gauges, etc. For the reasons discussed in response to your first question concerning S3.3, any interior compartment door on the instrument panel is covered by the requirements of section 3.3, not just those located in the head impact area.

You also asked about the requirements of section 3.3.1 of the standard. You state that section 3.3.1 allows the use of either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Your statement is not correct. Section 3.3 of the standard requires more than compliance with either option (b) or (c) of section 3.3.1. Section 3.3 requires interior compartment doors to remain closed when "tested in accordance with either S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(b) or S3.3.1(a) and S3.3.1(c)."

You also state that you interpret option (c) of section 3.3.1 to be a horizontal inertial load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 mile per hour flat barrier impact. Your interpretation is correct. Section 3.3.1(c) provides that an interior compartment door latch must be subject to "a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction in accordance with the procedures described in section 5 of SAE Recommended Practice J839b, 'Passenger Car Side Door Latch Systems,' or an approved equivalent." The purpose of the requirement is to impose loads similar to the loads experienced by a door latch tested in the 30 mile per hour forward barrier crash required by section 3.3.1(b) of the standard.

You further state that the loading applied in accordance with section 3.3.1(c) should be a forward deceleration inertia loading. Your interpretation is not correct. To ensure that the requirements of sections 3.3.1(b) and 3.3.1(c) are equivalent in stringency, the agency believes that the 30g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(c) must take into account the distortion and deformation that would occur in a 30 mile per hour barrier impact. Therefore, the 30g inertia load must be applied in both the forward and rearward direction. Likewise, the 10g inertia load requirement of section 3.3.1(a) must be applied in both the inboard and outboard direction.

Your final question concerned the requirements of section 3.5.1 of the standard, which specifies that armrests must comply with at least one of three options. Section 3.5.1(c) specifies that one option is providing an armrest which has "Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length . . . when measured vertically in side elevation. . . at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area." You are correct that an armrest complying with section S3.5.1(c) can be made of any material, as long as it meets the dimensional requirements set by that section.

If you have further questions, please let me know.

ENC.

BLUE BIRD

BODY COMPANY

October 26, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Reference: FMVSS 201 Occupant Protection in Interior Impact Passenger Car

FMVSS 201, Section 3.3, Interior Compartment Door, states, "a compartment door located in . . . side panel adjacent to a designated seating position . . . ". Blue Bird Body Company interprets this phrase to be an area projected laterally to the side panel from the Head Impact Area as defined by Part 571 Subpart A - Definitions.

This interpretation is based on the concept that FMVSS 201, Section 3.3 is intended to prevent occupant head contact with an inertia opened compartment door during a crash. The Head Impact Area defines the trajectory of the occupant head during such a crash, and thus would define the area of potential head to compartment door contact. Compartment doors within this projected area should comply with Section 3.3, while those outside of this area should be exempt. This is also consistent with the American Heritage Dictory definition of adjacent as being next to; or adjoining. This definition would exempt panels located above the door or upper window header.

Blue Bird Body Company also defined "instrument panel" as referenced in Section 3.3, to be the panel below the windshield that normally is used to mount gages, speedometers, etc, to monitor vehicle functions and that is within the Head Impact Area as defined in Subpart A - Definitions.

Section 3.3.1, Demonstration Procedures, allows either option (b) or (c) to show compliance. Blue Bird Body Company interprets option (c) to a horizontal inertia load of 30g in a longitudinal direction which would simulate a forward 30 miles per hour flat barrier impact, as required by option (b). This would be a forward deceleration inertia loading applied in accordance to Section 5 of the SAE Recommended Practice J839b.

Under Armrest, Section 3.5.1, General, option (c) specifies "not less than two continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically in side elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage within the pelvic impact area". Blue Bird Body Company interprets this to allow any material, including steel tube, aluminum or steel panel, that fulfills the dimensional requirements.

We respectfully request your confirmation of our interpretation to the above sections of FMVSS 201. An early reply would be apprediated.

Thank you.

Thomas D. Turner Manager Engineering Services

ID: 1982-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Phil Sharp - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher. Mr. Lecher is under the impression that there is some new law "banning cars with dark-tinted windows." He is particularly concerned that he will have to replace the windows on his Datson pickup.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. There is a safety standard which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (Standard No. 205). However, the requirements of this standard as they relate to tinting have not changed in years. The standard currently requires the windshield and front side windows in cars and trucks (i.e., windows necessary for driving visibility) to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. Other windows may be tinted as darkly as the manufacturer wishes. If the windows in Mr. Lecher's pickup were factory-installed, they are presumably in compliance with Standard No. 205. Therefore, Mr. Lecher should not worry about having to alter his windows. There is no new Federal law or regulation, nor any proposed rule, to change the requirements of Standard No. 205 in this regard.

Mr. Lecher might be referring to a State law or regulation. We understand that some states are considering prohibitions against the use of dark tinting films which can be applied to existing vehicle windows. Such State laws would not require Mr. Lecher to alter the windows on his pickup, however, if the windows are the original glazing installed by the manufacturer in compliance with the Federal standard. This is because Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392, et seq.) pre-empts any State law which is applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard.

Standard No. 205 would pre-empt any State law which attempted to specify the amount of tinting that a piece of new motor vehicle glazing could have. Standard No. 205 would not pre-empt a State law which prohibits the applications of films or decals on existing glazing, however, since Standard 205 does not apply to the use of glazing after it has been purchased by a consumer. I suggest that Mr. Lecher contact his State Department of Motor Vehicles to find out about any activity in this area.

I am enclosing a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act for Mr. Lecher's information.

Sincerely,

2 Enclosures; Constituent's Correspondence; Vehicle Safety Act

ATTACH.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

December 7, 1981

Joe LaSalla -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Lafalla:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher, who is concerned about a ban on the use of tinted glass in trucks.

I am enclosing a copy of the letter that I received from Mr. Lecher. I would appreciate an explanation of any action your agency has taken or information of which you are aware in any other agency which would result in the banning of the use of tinted glass.

Your assistance in complying with this request will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Phil Sharp -- Member of Congress

Enclosure

NOVEMBER 22, 1981

Dear Congressman Shop,

My name is Mark Lecher, originally from Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Now I'm living in the Bargersville area, South of Indianapolis. I work as a Cabinet maker, earning $ 5.00 per hour.

I don't feel the Social-Security problem will have much hope of helping me, by my time of retirement. I'm 28 years old now. All a person hears about is how the government is running out of money.

This company I work for has no retirement pension plan. So, if Social Security runs out, I'll only wonder, where did all that money go that I put into it for my own future.

There are alot of people who feel that way.

But it seems helpless to worry about.

Also in this letter, mainly why I wrote, is about this new law banning cars with dark - tinted windows. (Excluding windshields)

Last year I bought a new Datson pickup truck, great gas mileage.

When I bought it it had dark-tinted side windows, and back window. Now I hear they're going to (Illegible Word) the dark-tint. If I have to remove this tint it will ruin my window. The substance is not made to come off. And there is no way I could afford to buy new clean windows.

So if you can, please, stop that Bill! and good luci- with the Social Security System.

Sincerely, Mark E. Lecher

ID: 1982-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: David Traxler

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to follow-up your telephone call of October 29, 1981, asking whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply to "hatchback" door latches.

Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components, includes requirements for side door latches. We have enclosed a copy of that standard for your convenience.

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to the rear latch of a hatchback. However, even in the absence of a safety standard, the defect provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may be applicable. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act provide that manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must notify owners of vehicles and equipment with safety-related defects and remedy those defects free of charge.

ENC.

ID: 1982-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concerning differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.

Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittance requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.

As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider sun screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.

You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. The agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.

Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, in applicable part, that:

No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authority to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides, in applicable part, that:

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

Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Part 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.

Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the height of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.

ENCLS.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY OPERATIONS

November 16, 1981

Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is presently in the process of reviewing its current inspection regulations to determine the validity of present equipment requirements or their present exclusion. If you could assist by responding to the two issues which follow, it would be greatly appreciated.

Our first concern is the validity of the VESC regulation regarding motor vehicle sun-screening (VESC Stand 20, approved July 1980), and any distinction from the National level between tinting by the original manufacturer and after market applications. Our specific concern is the 70 percent transmittance level set by VESC. Please refer to the enclosed copy of VESC 20.

The second issue in which we are interested and which, under certain circumstances is controlled by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, is bumper and windshield heights on newly manufactured reproductions of old cars. Our present regulations specify a bumper height of 16"-20", and a vertical windshield height of no less than 12". Please see the enclosed information concerning a 1950 Porsche reproduction.

Any information you could supply on these two matters would be very helpful to this Department in determining what standards to set, so as to insure minimum compliance with any Federal requirements. If you have any additional questions, please contact me.

Kathy G. Phillips, Manager Vehicle Safety Division