ID: 1984-1.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: McGraw-Edison Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering McGraw-Edison Company 18448 Craig Road St. Louis, Missouri 63146

Dear Mr. Brown:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 116, Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids. You asked whether paper labels on brake fluid containers are sufficient to comply with the "indelibly marked" requirements of the standard. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no.

By way of background information, I would note that NHTSA does not grant approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to determine that its motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.2.2.2 of Standard No. 116 states:

Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . .

It is our opinion that this section requires the relevant information to be marked directly on the brake fluid container and not merely on a label, whether paper or of some other material, that is affixed to the container. This is clear both from the plain language of the section and from the Federal Register notices proposing and adopting that language.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 30, 1970, NHTSA proposed the following language as part of the packaging and labeling requirements for motor vehicle brake fluids:

S4.2.2.2 Each packager of brake fluid shall furnish to each distributor or dealer to whom he sells brake fluid, the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, or on a label or tag firmly attached to each such container. . . . 35 FR 15229, 15231.

The final rule, published on June 24, 1971, did not adopt the proposed alternative of permitting the information to be provided on a label or tag firmly attached to the container, but instead required the information to be clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. The language as adopted, which is very similar to the current language, was:

S5.2.2.2 Each packager of motor vehicle brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container. . . . 36 FR 11987, 11989.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 5, 1983 Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to you with regard to paragraph S5.2.2.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116 which reads in part as follows:

"Each packager of a brake fluid shall furnish the following information clearly and indelibly marked on each brake fluid container, . . . . "

I have observed a number of brands of brake fluids in the marketplace packaged in containers having a loose-fitting paper sleeve for the label. In the past we have been requested to supply brake fluid in containers with paper labels and have declined to do so on the basis that in my judgment a paper label does not comply with the requirement "indelibly marked".

Within the past few weeks we have been approached once again to supply brake fluid in containers with paper labels. We are reluctant to pursue this matter unless we have some assurance that a paper label does, indeed, comply with the "indelibly marked" provision of paragraph S5.2.2.2 FMVSS-116.

Please advise at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

WAGNER DIVISION McGRAW-EDISON COMPANY

R. G. Brown Chief Engineer Materials Engineering RGB:ab

ID: 1984-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Branch Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. Suite 462 23777 Greenfield Road Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter of January 20, 1984, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. You asked whether Mazda may modify the display of shift lever positions for vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions to delete the gear lever indicator. As explained below, FMVSS No. 102 does not permit the deletion of the gear position indicator.

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

Your letter states that Mazda automobiles with automatic transmissions currently display the gear lever sequence and identify the shift lever position of the automobile. Based on the information in your letter, the agency understands that you propose to modify the display in such a way that "the actual gear selection would not be indicated (as is the case of current manual transmissions)." The pattern of the gear positions would be embossed either on the instrument panel or on the shift lever handle.

Paragraph S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 states that the "identification of shift lever positions of automatic transmissions...shall be permanently displayed in view of the driver." Emphasis added. 49 CFR S571.102. NHTSA interprets "position" to mean the position of the gears in relation to each other and the position that the driver has selected at the time of selection. Therefore, the display of a gear lever sequence and a gear position indicator is required for automobiles equipped with automatic transmissions.

You should note that FMVSS No. 101, Controls and Displays, also applies to the display of automatic gear positions. Paragraph S5 of the standard requires that, inter alia, each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle, truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard shall meet the requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of such display. Since "gear position" is listed under S5.1, and "Automatic Gear Position" is listed under Table 2, the requirements of FMVSS No. 101 apply to the display of shift lever positions in vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 20, 1984

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

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 102 - Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock and Transmission Braking Effect.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

In order to provide more flexibility in interior styling, Mazda is considering modifying the display of shift lever positions for automatic transmission equipped vehicles.

Currently, the display of gear positions is used simultaneously to indicate actual gear selection (located at the base of the shift lever on the center floor console). The modification would delete the display at the shift lever base and emboss the selection positions either on the instrument panel (visible to the driver) or on the shift lever handle. The gear sequence would remain the same as currently used and as described in Section 3.1.1. The actual gear selection would not be indicated (as is the case of current annual transmissions).

Mazda assumes this modification would still conform to the criteria described in Section 3.2 of Safety Standard 102. The result would be greater freedom in the area of occupant compartment design. Please comment on this assumption and any further relevent items.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Branch Manager

HN/ab

ID: 1984-1.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation -- C.I. Nielsen, III, Vice President, Marketing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/28/70 letter from Roger H. Compton to E.W. Bernitt (L.W. Kermitt), Jeep Corporation

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

In response to your letter of February 16, 1984, I enclose a copy of the letter of October 28, 1970, to AMC that you requested. The interpretation remains valid. There is no charge for the letter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure 10/28/70 letter from Roger H. Compton to E.W. Bernitt omitted here.

February 16, 1984

Gentlemen:

We are writing to you at this time to request a copy of a "letter of intent" regarding compliance with DOT-108 para S4.1.1.6 and S4.1.1.7.

It has been suggested we get a copy of this letter from you before proceeding on the design on a multi-function tail light.

The "letter of intent" we are referring to is Mr. Roger Compton's October 23, 1970 letter to AMC-Jeep regarding what area is considered "measurable" to meet the requirements.

If there is a charge for this requested copy, and it is under $25.00 please send the letter with the invoice and we will pay it promptly. If the charges are in excess of $25.00, please advise same before proceeding any further.

Thank you in advance for your prompt response to our request.

Sincerely,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C. I. Nielsen III Vice President -Marketing

CIN:mk

ID: 1984-1.34

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Maryland State Police -- Richard W. Janney, Captain Commander

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Richard W. Janney, Captain Commander, A.S.E.D. Maryland State Police 6601 Ritchie Highway Glen Burnie, MD 21062

This is to follow-up your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's letter of December 20, 1983, on Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. I hope that the following discussion will clarify the relationship between the requirements of Standard No. 205 and the render inoperative provision of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act).

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements, including requirements for light transmittance and abrasion resistance, for all glazing materials used in motor vehicles. Those performance requirements may vary depending on the vehicle type involved and the place in the vehicle where the glazing is used. For example, the luminous transmittance and abrasion resistance requirements apply to all windows in a passenger car, but only to windshield and windows to the immediate right and left of the driver in a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle.

The application of tinting materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act if it knowingly installed in a passenger car a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard. In each case, there will be a factual question of whether the glazing material, as tinted, will continue to meet the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard.

If you are aware of any manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair shops that are in apparent violation of section 108(a)(2)(A), please provide information concerning those apparent violations to our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. The information should be sent to:

Mr. Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 6113 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 2059O

I hope this discussion will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-1.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. Nakaya -- Office Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, MI 48018

This responds to your letter of February 20, 1984, asking three questions concerning the compliance test procedures of Standard No. 219 that would be used in testing a truck with a forward tilt cabin. The answers to your questions are discussed below.

You first asked whether in doing the compliance test, "may the test sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?" In conducting Standard No. 210 compliance tests, the agency conducts the test on a fully assembled vehicle (i.e., cabin and chassis/frame).

You then asked whether the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry could be reinforced during the testing. The answer is no; the agency tests the vehicle as manufactured.

Finally, you asked "should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanism be considered within the scope" of the Standard No. 210 compliance testing. The answer is no. The purpose of the standard is to measure the performance of the seat belt anchorages. A failure of the tilt cab latch would not constitute a failure of Standard No. 210. I must note, however, that a failure of a tilt cab latch under the loading experienced during a Standard No. 210 compliance test could raise the question of whether the latch contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. I urge you to design the latch in such a manner that it will withstand the loads generated during a crash.

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

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

February 20, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration 400 7th S.W. Washington, DC 20590

re: Interpretation of Compliance Testing Criteria - Safety Standard 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda, after reviewing our test procedures used to verify compliance with Standard 210, has a number of questions relating to truck vehicles equipped with a forward tilt cabin:

1. When a forward tilt cabin equipped truck is to be tested for seat belt assembly anchorage performance, may the test sample consist of just the cabin with the production seating system installed?

2. If just the cabin is required, would it be possible to reinforce the tilt cabin rear latch bracketry? If the chassis/frame is required, would such reinforcement be allowed?

3. When performing Standard 210 compliance testing, should the tilt cabin latch bracketry and mechanisms be considered within the scope of their Standard 210 compliance varification testing?

Please respond to these questions and discuss any issues relevant to the accurate interpretation of Standard 210 testing procedures and criteria at your earliest convenience.

Thank you, Sincerely, Original signed by H. Nakaya

ID: 1984-1.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Armond Cardarelli

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Armond Cardarelli Director, Safety Equipment Services American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 910 Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Cardarelli:

Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1985, concerning the application of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, to sun- screening materials used on vehicle glazing. I hope that the following discussion will answer your questions.

You first asked if Standard No. 205 regulates the use of sun-screening materials. Standard No. 205 affects the use of sun-screening materials in the following ways. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements that all glazing used in new motor vehicles and all glazing sold as aftermarket equipment for use in motor vehicles must meet. One of the requirements of the standard is that, as explained in more detail in response to your second question, all windows requisite for driving visibility must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Another is that glazing for use in those areas must meet specified requirements for resistance to abrasion.

Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, conforms with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard. Likewise, if a dealer or other person places sun-screening material on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

Purchasers of new vehicles may alter the vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. There are no requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which would limit such alterations. However, certain commercial establishments must not install tinted film or other sun-screening material on windows if the combination of the sun-screening material and glazing cannot meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may knowingly install a film or other sun-screening material on a used vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violators of this prohibition are subject to Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

State laws which are inconsistent with these Federal requirements are preempted. Any State law or regulation which would permit any person to install sun-screening material on a new vehicle in violation of Standard No. 205 is preempted under section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a law would have no effect on the illegality of that installation under Federal law. Further, any State law or regulation that would permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses to install sun-screening material on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act is also preempted.

Your second question asked which windows in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. In particular, you asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to opera windows and sun roofs. The specification for light transmittance applies to all windows, including opera windows, in a passenger car. It does not, however, apply to car sunroofs . As to trucks , buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, it only applies to the windshield and the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver. Thus, none of those windows may be darkly tinted. However, the windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement and thus may be darkly tinted.

Your third question asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to the windows behind the driver in passenger cars or station wagons if those vehicles are equipped with an exterior mirror on the right side of the vehicle. The answer is that those windows must still meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-1.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheeskin; Hillman & Lazar; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jacob Sheeskin Sheeskin, Hillman & Lazar, P.C. 6110 Executive Boulevard P.O. Box 2186 Rockville, MD 20852

RE: your file 3189/001:11

Dear Mr. Sheeskin:

This responds to your letter of March 7, 1984, concerning discussions between your client and the Maryland State Police about the application of tinting or sun screening materials to vehicle glazing materials. This office has sent two letters of interpretation concerning the application of glazing materials to the Maryland State Police. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's letters of December 20, 1983 and April 3, 1984 and the Maryland States Police's original request for an interpretation.

As stated in our letter of April 7, 1984, the application of tinting materials to glazing does not, in and of itself, constitute a violation of the render inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. To violate section 108(a)(2)(A), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair shops that install tinting materials must knowingly install materials which render inoperative the glazing material's compliance with Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, a motor vehicle repair shop would be in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) if it knowingly installed on a passenger car's window a tinting material which would render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance or luminous transmittance requirements of the standard.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 7, 1984

In reply refer to: Our File No. 3189/001:11 Gerald S. Lakas, t/a Custom Window Tinting Services

Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This will confirm my telephone conversations of March 5th and 6th with Steve Oesch, Esquire, of your office. I informed Mr. Oesch that I represent Gerald S. Lakas, t/a Custom Window Tinting Services. Mr. Lakas is in the business of tinting automobile windows in the state of Maryland. On March 2, 1984 he received a call from the Automotive Safety Enforcement Division of the Maryland State Police which in effect ordered him to cease and desist his business immediately. A statement by the Maryland State Police officer was that as a result of a recent court case in Hawaii and as a result of a recent ruling by your office that the addition of tinting film or sunscreen materials to vehicle glazing on passenger cars is not in conformance with abrasion resistance requirements and may also exceed allowable luminous transmittance requirements set forth in 49 CFR 571.205. It is also our understanding that the Maryland State Police issued a directive that Class A Maryland registered passenger vehicles would not be permitted to have window tinting that was not incorporated into the original glazing on any window by the manufacturer.

Mr. Oesch of your office was kind enough to furnish us with a copy of USA Standard Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways and we, of course, reviewed 49 CFR 571.205 as well as 15 USCA 1391, et seq.

After reviewing the above material we came to the conclusion that the addition of tinting film or sunscreen materials in and of itself does not violate any federal regulation as long as the material complies with the luminescence and abrasive requirements. I asked Mr. Oesch if it is possible for us to obtain a statement to this effect from your office and he suggested that I write this letter to you. We have talked to the manufacturer of the tinting material that our client uses and we are assured by the manufacturer that the material complies with federal regulations. We have also suggested to our client that he have his material tested locally to make sure he is in compliance.

For your information we enclose a copy of a letter we have addressed to Captain W.R. Janey of the Maryland State Police Automotive Safety Enforcement Division which explains the position we have taken with said facility. We do not feel that the Maryland State Police had any authority to order Mr. Lakas to cease his operations. We have advised Mr. Lakas that we feel he should stay in business until such time it has been demonstrated that his materials do not comply with federal regulations and if they do not comply we suggested that he seek another supplier of material or that his materials be modified to comply with federal regulations. It is not our client's intention to violate any federal or state law or regulation.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend Mr. Oesch for his very prompt attention to my inquiry. He was most informative and very helpful in resolving my client's problem.

Very truly yours,

Jacob Sheeskin

JS/drw

ID: 1984-1.38

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Troy C. Martin

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 1984-1.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/11/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Stephen Underwood Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Underwood:

This is to follow up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff on Standard No. 203, Impact Protection for the Driver From the Steering Control System. You asked how the steering wheel should be positioned when it is tested in accordance with the standard. As explained below, the steering wheel should be positioned at its design angle, as specified by the manufacturer.

Standard No. 203 incorporates by reference Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J944, Steering Wheel Assembly Laboratory Test Procedure, December 1965. Section 6.2 of SAE J944 provides that the steering wheel is to be mounted "at the proper angle as determined by the package drawing." Therefore, the agency would mount the column at the design angle specified by the manufacturer.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-1.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/26/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Margaret Moore Oba

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION