ID: 1984-2.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/24/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. -- M. Iwase, Manager, Techinical Administration Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Department Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Kitawaki Shimuzu-shi, Shitzuoka-ken Japan

This is in reply to your letter of June 21, 1984, to Mr. Driver of this agency asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Mr. Driver has not been an official of this agency for many years, and in the future, your requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Your first question is whether Safety Standard No. 108 permits a two-headlamp system on motorcycles. The answer is yes. Paragraph S.4.1.1.34 specifies the lighting systems permissible on motorcycles. It allows two Type 2D1 or Type 2 (7 in.), or two Type 2B1 or Type 2B headlamps. Under Table IV, if two headlamps are used, they must be disposed symmetrically around the vertical center line. Two non-sealed headlamps meeting the requirements of SAE J584 may also be used, subject to the same mounting restriction. Therefore the system you propose appears acceptable under Standard No. 108.

You have also asked whether the two headlamps may be mounted one atop the other, rather than side by side. While Table IV specifies that a single headlamp must be mounted "on the vertical centerline", requires that two headlamps be disposed symetrically around it. We do not interpret this language as allowing two headlamps to be mounted adjacent to each other on the vertical centerline.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Mr. E. T. Driver, Director Official of Crash Avoidance Date: June 21, 1984 Motor Vehicle Programs U.S. Department of Transportation Koito Ref. No.84.06.21.02 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Two Lamp System of Motorcycle Headlamp

Dear Mr. E. T. Driver;

We are now going to carry out engineering design of motorcycle headlamp of two lamp system as illustrated below.

We know well that there is a fact that the motorcycle with two lamp system headlamp has already been on sale in US market.

We would like you to confirm your opinion concerning the legal applicability of the two lamp system of Motorcycle headlamp.

Configuration of Two lamp system Motorcycle headlamp: INSERT GRAPH HERE Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upper Beam

Lower Bean

Upper Beam Motorcycle headlamp assembly Lower Beam

Motorcycle headlamp units

1. Photometric performance:

1-1) Each headlamp unit has equivalent dia. in dimension and photometric performance to the other and is designed to comply with the photometric requirements of table 1 & 2 of SAE J584 "Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle headlamps "specified in FMVSS No. 108, having two filaments (One is for upper beam and the other is for lower beam).

1-2) As for the combined max. value for the upper beam headlamp, the headlamp unit is optically designed to be less than 75,000 cd.

2. Installation arrangement:

Each headlamp unit is symmetrically installed about the longitudinal center line of Motorcycle.

3. Aiming adjustment mechanism:

Each headlamp unit is designed to be adjusted independently in horizontal and vertical directions

4. Others:

This motorcycle headlamp assembly is designed to conform to all of the requirements of FMVSS No. 108 and SAE J584.

Would you please get us your advice concerning the following questions;

Question:

1. Whether the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted legally or not.

2. Additional question in case that the two lamp system of motorcycle headlamp be permitted:

Whether the following installation arrangement be permitted or not.

INSERT GRAPH HERE Vertical arrangment

Longitudinal center plane of Motorcycle

Upon your kind review to the above, your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated, and we remain,

Yours very truly,

M. Iwase, Manager Technical Administration Dept.

Koito Manufacturing. Co., Ltd.

Shizuoka Works

ID: 1984-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lamborghini of North America

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America 23535 Telo Street Torrance, California 90505

Dear Mr. Thomas:

We have received your petition of July 6, 1984, for a two-year exemption of the Lamborghini Countach from the requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 that it be equipped with sun visors.

You have filed this petition pursuant to 49 CFR Part 556 on the basis that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield. Petitions of this nature are appropriate where a product has inadvertently been manufactured out of compliance but the noncompliance has been corrected and the manufacturer seeks relief from the statutory responsibilities of notification and remedy for its past production. We do not understand this to be the case, as you have not reported importation of any Countachs without sun visors.

The proper procedure to obtain temporary exemptions from prospective noncompliances are those of 49 CFR Part 555. We assume that you have a copy of this regulation. If you wish to petition on one of the bases of this regulation, we shall be pleased to consider the matter further.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 6, 1984

The Administrator NHTSA Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

RE: PETITION FOR PARTIAL EXEMPTION FROM FMVSS #201-LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP 500S

Enclosed, please find our petition for partial exemption from Standard 201 for sun visors on the basis that such non-compliance is inconsequential in relation to road safety due to the construction of the car and the tinted band on the windshield.

We look forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Trefor Thomas Managing Director Lamborghini of North America

TT:ac Enc.

LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA LAMBORGHINI COUNTACH LP500S PETITION FOR EXEMPTION FROM PART OF 49CFR PART 571.201.5.3.4.

49CFR 556.(B) (3)

APPLICANT: LAMBORGHINI OF NORTH AMERICA 17230 SOUTH AVALON BOULEVARD CARSON, CALIFORNIA 90746

Applicant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California.

49CFR 556.(b)(4)

Temporary exemption is requested from 49CFR, Part 571.201.5.3.4.

Sunvisors

5.3.4.1. A sun visor that is constructed of or covered with energy absorbing material shall be provided for each front outboard designated seating position.

Exemption is requested for a period of two (2) years. Vehicle concerned is the Lamborghini Countach LP500S. Number of vehicles involved is fifty (50) per year, for each of the two (2) years for which exemption is requested.

49CFR 556.4(b) (5)

Basis for petition

Our basis for request for exemption is probably more relevant to 49CFR 556, in that in our opinion the non-compliance of the vehicle with the sun visor requirement is inconsequential relative to motor vehicle safety.

The roofline, front header rail, (actually a part of the tubular steel roll cage) and the top portion of the windshield which is lightly tinted are relatively low and the angles subtended at the eye point relative to the horizontal plane by the roofline and the bottom of the tinted strip are as low as conventional sun visor placement would provide. The enclosed photograph shows the view from eye-level.

The enclosed diagram shows the position of a 50th percentile male's head from and the generation of the angles subtended at the eye-point by the header rail and the lowest point of the tinted portion at the top of the windshield.

"INSERT"

ID: 1984-2.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Hayes Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

May 29, 1984

Ms. Doris A. Lindley Purchasing Agent Hayes Equipment Corporation P.O. Box 526 150 New Britain Avenue Unionville, Connecticut 06085

Dear Ms. Lindley:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, requesting information on the tire registration requirements applicable to your company as a manufacturer of new trailers. Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of the Motor Vehicle Safety and Cost Savings Authorization Act of 1982. You also asked for confirmation that your company, as the manufacturer of trailers, has sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment on trailers sold under your company's name. Your understanding is correct.

The responsibility of the various parties for recording and keeping records of the tire identification numbers of new tires are set forth in 49 CFR Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping. Section 574.10 reads as follows:

Each motor vehicle manufacturer, or his designee, shall maintain a record of the new tires on or in each vehicle shipped by him or a motor vehicle distributor or dealer, and shall maintain a record of the name and address of the first purchaser for purposes other than resale of each vehicle equipped with such tires. These records shall be maintained for a period of not less than 3 years from the date of sale of the vehicle to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

As you can see from this language, it is the vehicle manufacturer that has the sole responsibility for keeping records of the tire identification numbers of the tires shipped as original equipment an or in the vehicle and records of the first purchasers of those vehicles for purposes other than resale. This responsibility remains even if the tires on the vehicle are changed by a vehicle dealer or distributor, unless that dealer or distributor voluntarily notifies the vehicle manufacturer of the tire change. As long as the vehicle is sold with the tires that were shipped with it as original equipment, dealers and distributors of the vehicle have no responsibilities for either registering the tires or keeping any records. Should those dealers and distributors substitute tires on the vehicle other than those shipped as original equipment, they would have some responsibility for registering the tires with the tire manufacturer, per section 574.9, but it would be the tire manufacturer that would be responsible for keeping the records, not the dealers and distributors.

Should you have any further questions relating to tire registration requirements, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood

for Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 11, 1983

Office Of Chief Council National Highway Safety Division 400 7th Street South West Washington DC 20590

Attention: Steve Kratzke

Reference: "Motor vehicle safety and cost savings authorization act of 1982).

Dear Steve:

As per our conversation of this date, I would like to request from you a copy of the above mentioned act. I would appreciate your clarifying one point for me. As I understand it from you, Hayes Equipment Corporation, as the manufacturer has the sole responsibility for keeping records of tire serial numbers and end recipient of said tire. As long as the trailer is sold under the Hayes name, no dealers, distributors, or stores (i.e. J. C. Penney) have any legal responsibility in this regard.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Doris A. Lindley Purchasing Agent

DL:jd

ID: 1984-2.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automobile Importers of America,Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Bruce Henderson Automobile Importers of America, Inc. 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1002 Arlington, Virginia 1002 Dear Mr. Henderson:

This is in reply to your letter to Mr. Vinson of this office, in which you asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically, you would like to know whether a supplementary turn signal unit may be added to each front fender near the wheel well of a vehicle already equipped with a turn signal system meeting Standard No. 108. You also asked whether there were any restrictions on the mounting height of such a lamp.

Standard No. 108 allows lighting equipment additional to that required by the standard provided that it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (paragraph S4.1.3). The supplementary turn signal unit that you describe would appear to enhance the effectiveness of the required turn signals rather than detract from them. There is no requirement that equipment, added at the option of the manufacturer, meet the specific requirements of the standard applicable to identical or similar items of equipment; i.e., the supplementary unit is not legally required to have the same flash rate as the primary turn signals, nor is it subject to the same mounting height restrictions. Obviously, if these specifications are met, supplementary equipment is less likely to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment within the meaning of S4.1.3.

As you are no doubt aware, some manufacturers are wiring their front side marker lamps to flash with the turn signals. This type of supplementary system is acceptable to us.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 17, 1984

Mr. Taylor Vincent Office of Chief Counsel - NOA-30 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Vincent:

We would like to request all interpretation of the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (in particular, FMVSS 108) in the following case:

A passenger car complies fully with the requirements for turn signals in FMVSS 108. Is it permissable to add a "turn signal repeater lamp" to each front fender near the wheel well? This repeater lamp would indicate to a vehicle in an adjacent lane an intention to change lanes. The vehicle would continue to to meet requirements in FMVSS 108 for rate of flash, bulb burnout indications, etc.

If the use of such turn signal repeaters in addition to the "four-corner" signal lamps is permissible, is there any restriction on the mounting height - maximum or minimum?

Thank you for your attention and assistance in this matter.

Sincerely, Bruce Henderson BH:bd

ID: 1984-2.41

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Jack DiMaio Technical Service Dept. Continental Products Corporation 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. DiMaio:

This responds to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.119). Specifically, you asked whether it is necessary to mold the DOT symbol on the sidewall of a motorcycle tire used for racing on a production motorcycle, if the production motorcycle is to be used only on the race track. Standard No. 119 requires the DOT certification to appear on new motorcycle tires designed for highway use. If these tires are designed for use only on a race track, they need not have a DOT symbol on the sidewall.

Section S6.5( a) of Standard No. 119 specifies that each tire subject to the standard shall be marked with the symbol DOT, which shall constitute a certification that the tire conforms to applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, section S3 specifies: "This standard applies to new pneumatic tires designed for highway use on...motorcycles manufactured after 1948" emphasis added. Thus, the relevant question in determining whether the DOT certification must appear on the sidewall of a tire is whether the tire is designed for highway use.

It is not clear from your letter whether these tires are designed for highway use. You noted that the motorcycles on which the tire is mounted are intended for use only on race tracks. If these tires are not designed for use on other motorcycles, the DOT symbol need not be molded on the sidewall of the tires. If, on the other hand, the tires are also designed for use on other motorcycles which wil1 be used on the highways, the DOT symbol must be molded on the sidewall of the tires. This is a determination which must be made in the first instance by Continental, but may be reexamined by this agency.

Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information on this matter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 20, 1984 NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Frank Berndt Dear Mr. Berndt,

In a recent visit to Continental A. G., in Hanover, Germany, the question of high speed motor cycle racing tires camp up. The question is as follows.

Is it necessary to mold the DOT approval on the sidewall of a motor cycle tire used for racing on a production racing motor cycle to be used on the race track only?

Your early response to the above questions would be greatly appreciated along with any comments relating to this subject.

Sincerely, Jack DiMaio Technical Service Dept.

ID: 1984-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/31/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Janet E. Odom -- Deputy City Attorney, Lakewood, Colorado

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter concerning legislation that went into effect on January 1, 1984, in Colorado governing the use of certain materials on vehicle windows. You asked us to review the legislation and to inform you as to the effect of Federal statutes or regulations on the Colorado statute.

Section 42-4-224(1)(a) of the Colorado statute enclosed in your letter prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle in which "the windshield or front side windows and side wings immediately forward of or to the left and right of the driver are composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component which presents an opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored appearance in such a way that the operator of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through such window from outside the vehicle." In addition, Section 42-4-224(d) provide that "No material shall be used on any window in the motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance."

Section 42-4-224(c) of the Colorado statute provides that the prohibition against the use of opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored windows shall not be construed "to prevent the use of any window which is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component in a manner approved by federal statute or regulation if such window was included as a component part of a vehicle at the time of the vehicle manufacture, or the replacement of any such window by such covering which meets such guidelines."

Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) sets forth the agency's preemption authority. Section 103(d) provides 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.

Pursuant to section 103(a) of the Act, we have promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in new vehicles as well as replacement glazing to be installed in used vehicles. One aspect of performance covered by the standard is the light transmittance of windows which are requisite for driving visibility. Those windows must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. The agency considers all windows in passenger vehicles requisite for driving visibility. In most other motor vehicles, only the windshield and front side windows are usually considered requisite for driving visibility. Therefore, for instance, under Standard No. 205 the rear windows of a van could be opaque, since the transmittance requirements would not apply to those windows.

Because section 42-4-224(c) of the Colorado statute specifically provides that materials installed on a new vehicle or as replacement equipment in compliance with a Federal regulation are not prohibited, the statute is not in conflict with Standard No. 205 and thus is not preempted. In addition, since the reflectivity of a window is not an aspect of performance governed by Standard No. 205, Colorado's requirements concerning glazing reflectance would not be preempted. Once a vehicle is sold, Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits a dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, those persons may not install materials on a vehicle's window if the installation would mean that the vehicle no longer complies with Standard No. 205. The agency's authority does not extend to the activities of individual vehicle owners. Therefore, the Colorado statute's prohibition against an owner installing opaque and other films is a matter within the State's authority and is not affected by Federal law.

If you need any further information, the agency will be glad to provide it.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 23, 1983

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Effective January 1, 1984, legislation will go into effect in Colorado that will prohibit the use of any material on any window in a motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance. The windshield or front side windows and side wings to the immediate left and right of the driver cannot also be covered by or composed of any nontransparent or opaque material. To be unlawful, said material must serve to make the driver of the vehicle not easily identifiable or recognizable through such window from outside the vehicle.

Could you please review this legislation, which I have enclosed, and inform me of your opinion concerning whether metallic or mirrored windows are permitted by federal statute or regulation to be used anywhere in the motor vehicle? Since federal regulations, as stated in ANS Z26, mandate that windows that are needed for the driver's visability allow light transmittance of not less than 70 percent of the available light, would metallic or mirrored windows conform to these regulations?

I would appreciate any assistance you could provide in interpreting the federal requirements.

Sincerely, Janet E. Odom -- Deputy City Attorney, City of Lakewood

Encls.

SECTION 2. 42-4-224, Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, as amended, is REPEALED AND REENACTED, WITH AMENDMENTS, to read:

42-4-224. Windows unobstructed - certain materials prohibited - windshield wiper requirements. (1) (a) No person shall operate any motor vehicle on which the windshield or front side windows and side wings immediately forward of or to the left and right of the driver are composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component which presents an opaque, nontransparent, or metallic or mirrored appearance in such a way that the operator of the vehicle cannot be easily identified or recognized through such window from outside the vehicle.

(b) Notwithstanding any provision of paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), nontransparent material may be applied, installed, or affixed to the topmost portion of the windshield subject to the following:

(I) The bottom edge of the material extends no more than four inches measured from the top of the windshield down:

(II) The material is not red or amber in color, nor does it affect perception of primary colors or otherwise distort vision or contain lettering that distorts or obstructs vision;

(III) The material does not reflect sunlight or headlight glare into the eyes of occupants of oncoming or preceding vehicles to any greater extent than the windshield without the material.

(c) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to prevent the use of any window which is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component in a manner approved by federal statute or regulation if such window was included as a component part of a vehicle at the time of the vehicle manufacture, or the replacement of any such window by such covering which meets such guidelines.

(d) No material shall be used on any window in the motor vehicle that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance.

(e) Nothing in this subsection (1) shall be construed to deny or prevent the use of certificates or other papers which do not obstruct the view of the driver and which may be required by law to be displayed.

(2) The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be so constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.

(3) Any person who violates any provision of this section commits a class B traffic infraction.

(4) This section shall apply to all motor vehicles.

SECTION 3. Effective date. This act shall take effect January 1, 1984.

SECTION 4. Safety clause. The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.

Ted L. Strickland PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE

Carl B. Bledsoe SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Marjorie L. Nielson SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

Lorraine F. Lombardi CHIEF CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APPROVED June 1, 1983 8:13 pm

Richard D. Lamm GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

ID: 1984-2.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Transport Canada

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. G.N. Farr, P. Eng. Transport Canada Standards and Regulations Division, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 CANADA

Dear Mr. Farr:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR S571.222). First, I would like to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter. You specifically asked for an interpretation of section S5.1.3.4 of Standard No. 222, which section requires the seat back to absorb 4,000W inch-pounds of energy. This energy is applied to the seat by a loading bar moving forward. When calculating the energy absorbed by the seat, the force transmitted back through the loading bar after the forward pressure is released is subtracted from the energy which was transmitted through the loading bar when it was moving forward. You asked at what point the forward movement of the loading bar is stopped in order to permit the seat back to rebound with a resultant energy absorption by the seat back of 4,000W inch-pounds. You noted that the rebound characteristics of the seat being tested would have to be known in advance to calculate the point at which the forward movement of the loading bar should be stopped.

This point was explained in the preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking which preceded the adoption of Standard No. 222 (40 FR 17855; April 23, 1975) (copy enclosed). An earlier proposal had specified a requirement that, "The energy necessary to deflect the seat back 14 inches shall be not less than 4,000W inch-pounds". This agency decided that this language created needless confusion, by inaccurately combining two different requirements. Accordingly, the requirements were set forth in two separate sections. Section S5.1.3(b) now specifies that seat back deflection shall not exceed 14 inches. This requirement is related to the requirement in section S5.1.3.4 that the seat back absorb 4,000W inch-pounds.

When conducting the compliance testing for section S5.1.3.4, the agency deflects the seat back as far as it will go, and then releases the seat back. If the seat back absorbs 4,000W inch-pounds of energy or more when tested according to the procedures set forth in S5.1.3.4, it is deemed to pass the test. If the seat back does not absorb 4,000W inch-pounds during the test, the seat back has failed the test. I think your question arose from your impression that the testing must be continued until the seat back has absorbed exactly 4,000W inch-pounds of energy. This agency tests only to see if the seat back absorbs 4,000W inch-pounds or more.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5, January 9, 1984.

Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, U.S.A.

Dear Sir:

On November 22, 1983 we wrote to request a copy of any legal interpretations which have been made to clause S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222. A copy of the letter is attached.

We would appreciate it if you could review this item and respond at your earliest convenience.

Yours very truly,

G.N. Farr, P. Eng., Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation.

Attach.

Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0N5, November 22, 1983.

Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590, U.S.A.

Dear Sir:

This is a request to be provided with a copy of any legal interpretation which has been made to clause S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222. The interpretation would involve the method used to determine the amount of energy absorbed in deflecting the seat back (or retaining barrier). S5.1.3.4 of FMVSS 222 requires that an additional force be applied until 4000W inch-pounds of energy has been absorbed by the seat back. The force-deflection curve used to calculate the energy consists of both the forward and rearward travel of the loading bar pivot point. The question regarding clarification is, at what point do you stop the forward movement of the loading bar, in order to permit the seat back to rebound, with a resultant energy absorption of 4000 W inch-pounds? The rebound characteristics of the seat back would have to be known in advance in order to determine this point.

If a legal interpretation of this point has been made in the past, we would appreciate receiving a copy of same.

Yours very truly,

G.N. Farr P. Eng., Standards and Regulations, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulations

ID: 1984-2.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Public Instruction; State of Iowa

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dwight R. Carlson, Director School Transportation & Safety Education Division Department of Public Instruction State of Iowa Grimes State Office Building Des Moines, Iowa 50319

Dear Mr. Carlson:

This responds to your May 7, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concerning the remanufacture of school buses. You asked several questions regarding the replacement of new and used school bus bodies on new and used chassis, and the certification requirements for school buses remanufactured in this way.

Your first question concerned an automobile salvage yard that is remanufacturing school buses to sell to schools. If the body of the vehicle is damaged beyond repair, the salvage yard removes it and mounts a different used school bus body on the old chassis. You asked whether this procedure is appropriate. The answer to your question is that there is no prohibiton against remanufacturing school buses in this way.

This agency does not consider the mounting of a used vehic1e body on an old chassis to be the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Such a remanufactured vehicle need comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis.

You described a specific situation where a used school bus body was mounted on a 1980 model year chassis. In this situation the school bus should comply with the school bus safety standards, even though the vehicle is not considered newly manufactured. This is because the earliest date of manufacture that could be assigned to the remanufactured school bus is the date of manufacture of the chassis. Since the chassis was manufactured after Apri1 1, 1977, the bus would be required to comply with all the Federal school bus safety standards that became effective on April 1, 1977.

You asked whether this remanufactured school bus would have to be recertified.

A remanufactured school bus which uses a used chassis does not have to be recertified. The remanufactured school bus is considered to be the same vehicle as originally manufactured, and the original certification label should have been transferred to the new body at the time of the modification.

In your letter you asked two additional questions dealing with the remanufacture of school buses. The first question asked: "May a new school bus body be mounted on a used chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?"

As discussed earlier, the answer to this question is that manufacturers are not prohibited from mounting a new school bus body used chassis. Vehicles remanufactured in this way are not considered to be new vehicles. This school bus would only have to comply with the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis. On the other hand, if the chassis was manufactured after April 1, 1977, the new school bus body would have to comply with the Federal school bus safety standards since the date of manufacture of the school bus would be after the effective date of the safety standards.

The agency does not have any regulation placing limits on who can remanufacture a school bus. A school bus remanufactured by placing a new bus body on a used chassis is not required to be recertified since our regulations prescribe certification requirements for new motor vehicles only. If the remanufacturing of the bus is done by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair shop, then section 108( a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that those persons may not knowingly render inoperative any component or element of design installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to a vehicle owner, such as a school or a State. Thus, one of your schools could mount the bus body on the used chassis and would not have to assure that the remanufactured school bus complies with the Federal school bus safety standards. However, as I am sure you are aware, the school could incur substantial liability in the event of an accident involving a noncomplying school bus. Also, the school may find it difficult to obtain insurance for such a vehicle. This matter should be discussed between the school and its insurance company and attorney.

Your final question asked: "May a used school bus body be mounted on a new chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?"

The answer to your question is yes, a used school bus body may be mounted on a new chassis. In this situation the agency considers the mounting of an old school bus body on a new chassis to result in the manufacture of a new school bus. Since the earliest date of manufacture which could be assigned to the vehicle is the date of manufacture of the chassis (which we assume is after April 1, 1977) the school bus is subject to the Federal school bus safety standards. The remanufacture of the school bus can be performed by anyone. The manufacturer, however, must certify the school bus as conforming to the safety standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 7, 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of The Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is intended to formalize a telephone conversation we had with Ms. Deirdre Hom of your staff.

We have been notified that an automobile salvage yard in our state is purchasing used and in some cases damaged school buses. If the body is damaged beyond repair, they are removing the damaged body and mounting a different used school bus body on the used chassis. The reverse may be true where they are replacing the chassis with another used chassis. Recently, we inspected a school bus owned by a nonpublic school that had purchased the vehicle from the salvage yard. The chassis was a 1980 Chevrolet, but the Vehicle Identification Plate had been removed from the body, thus it was not possible to determine the date of manufacture or other information on the body. Our question is this, is the procedure described above appropriate in view of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards relating to school buses? Further, if the procedure is appropriate, should there be a certification or recertification by the person(s) performing the procedure, and if there must be a certification process, who may perform this function?

In view of the current undesirable economic situation many of our schools find themselves, we present two additional questions unrelated to the situation described above.

1. May a new school bus body be mounted on a used chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?

2. May a used school bus body be mounted on a new chassis? Who can perform this service? Is a certification or recertification necessary?

We appreciate your efforts in responding to our concerns. If you need additional information, please contact me at 515/281-5811 or at the above address.

Sincerely,

Dwight R. Carlson, Director School Transportation & Safety Education Division DRC/mjr

ID: 1984-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Deane; Snowdon; Shutler & Gherardi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John Russell Deane III Deane, Snowdon, Shutler & Gherardi 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Deane:

This responds to your letter of May 15, 1984, to Stephen Oesch of my staff, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. The following discussion addresses the agency's interpretation of the standard that you discussed with Mr. Oesch and the question concerning the luminous transmittance requirements in passenger cars that you raised in your letter.

You are correct that the standard regulates the glazing installed in motor vehicles and that the agency has stated that window coverings, such as solar tinting film, are not glazing for the purposes of the standard. You are also correct that the anti-tampering requirement of section 108(a)(2)(A) preclude the installation of window coverings by certain individuals, if the installation would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with Standard No. 205. Finally, you are correct that the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205 do not apply to windows behind the driver in buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) and trucks when those windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

The issue of whether Standard No. 205 would preempt a State standard on window covering must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As a general matter, Standard No. 205 would not preempt State laws on window covering unless those laws appear to authorize the installation of window coverings on a new vehicle prior to its first sale and the installation of the window covering would mean that the vehicle's glazing no longer complies with Standard. No. 205. As to the abrasion resistance requirements of Standard No. 205, while you are correct that they do not directly apply to window coverings, the installation of a window covering on a vehicle may render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard.

Finally, you requested information concerning the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. Subsequent to your meeting, Mr. Oesch provided you with the agency's interpretation letter of February 15, 1974, concerning windows in a passenger car which are requisite for driving visibility. The reason that the agency distinguishes between the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars and those for buses, MPV's and trucks is due to the differing rearward visibility requirements set in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors for those different types of vehicles. Standard No. 111 requires all passenger cars to have an inside rearview mirror, so it is necessary to ensure that the rear window of a passenger car has sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to use the rearview mirror. Unlike MPV's, buses and trucks, passenger cars are not required to have an outside rearview mirror on the passenger's side. Therefore, the agency believes that the side windows to the rear of the driver of a passenger car must have sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to have an adequate view through those windows to the rear of the car.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Stephen L. Oesch Chief Counsel General Law Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on Thursday, May 10, 1984 to discuss certain interpretations of FMVSS 205. As I mentioned during our meeting, I represent the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) which numbers among its members most of the manufacturers of various decorative window coverings. We have for some time attempted to develop objectively stated standards for use by the states in their regulation of these products. One of our manufacturer's major problems is the lack of uniformity in the state standards. We were successful in having the VESC adopt a model standard and have attempted to have that standard enacted by law or regulation in as many states as possible.

We are concerned that certain problems regarding state standards may have been exacerbated by certain correspondence between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and various state authorities. Specifically, this correspondence includes the letters from Hugh Oates to Paul J. Phillipson, dated February 17, 1983 and from Frank Berndt to B. E. Diehl, dated December 20, 1983.

While the message conveyed by those letters may have been misinterpreted, I believe that SEMA and your office agree on the current interpretation of FMVSS 205, except in one regard. First, FMVSS 205 covers within its scope window glazing which is installed in various vehicles and does not regulate the use of various window coverings. It is clear, however, that the antitampering provisions of the law would preclude the use of various materials by certain individuals, if the use of such materials would render inoperative the safety standard in question. Second, in its present form, FMVSS 205 is not preemptive of state laws which seek to deal with window covering products since the federal standard does not deal with such products. Third, FMVSS 205 does not impose the abrasion test on window covering materials. This is the case inasmuch as the standard does not apply to such window covering materials, and even if it did, the abrasion test is inapplicable to window glazing utilized in locations where there is no requirement for luminous transmittance. Our final point of agreement is that FMVSS 205 does not require luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver in multipurpose passenger vehicles vans and trucks where such windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

It would appear that the only area where we do not yet agree is with regard to the requirement for luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver of a passenger car. I believe that, as is the case with MPV, there is no requirement for luminous transmittance unless the window is requisite for driving visibility.

During our meeting I had requested that you provide me with copies of various documents where the policy of NHTSA had been expressed on the issue of luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. I had also requested any materials that you might have which discuss the rationale for a distinction between passenger cars and MPVs. Further, if it is possible to delineate any concerns which might warrant a distinction between MPV and passenger cars, it would be very helpful to us in finding ways of dealing with such concerns.

After we have had an opportunity to review the materials which you are providing us, I would very much appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the issue with you further. In the meantime, if there are any materials which we have which might be of use to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you again for meeting with me and for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN RUSSELL DEANE III cc: Calvin Hill Roger Greene Chuck Blum Bob Burch

ID: 1984-2.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Terry E. Teeter -- Transmission Division, Eaton Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Terry E. Teeter, P.E. Engineering Supervisor Transmission Division Eaton Corporation P.O. Box 4013 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49003

This responds to your May 14, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the transmissions that you manufacture for air brake equipped trucks. You stated that your transmissions use vehicle air pressure to accomplish gear changing and other transmission control functions. You stated your understanding that the transmission air system is an accessory similar to air powered wipers or air horns and therefore air lines connected to the system are exempt from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. As explained below, not all accessory lines are excluded from the standard, and the issue of whether your transmission lines are covered by the standard depends on whether a failure of the line would result in a loss of pressure in the brake system.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, defines brake hose as:

a flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

As you pointed out in your letter, the agency has previously determined that hoses connected to accessories such as air powered wipers or air horns need not comply with Standard No. 106. However, these hoses are only excepted from the standard if they do not transmit or contain the brake air pressure used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes. To determine whether the hoses of your transmission air system are excluded from Standard No. 106, you must determine whether a failure of such a hose would result in a loss of air pressure in the brake system. If this would be the case, the hoses transmit or contain the pressure used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes and therefore would have to comply with the standard. If you use a check valve or some other device to prevent loss of pressure, then the hose would not contain or transmit the air pressure and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 14, 1984

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Frank Berndt

Gentlemen:

We manufacture heavy duty truck transmissions that are used in Class 7 and Class 8 highway trucks. These trucks typically use air braking systems that utilize air brake hoses subject to FMVSS-106. Various models of our transmissions use vehicle air pressure to accomplish gear changing and other transmission control functions (see attached typical transmission drawing). This basic system has been in use for over thirty years.

It is our understanding that the transmission air system is an accessory such as the air powered wipers or the air horn (previously clarified in "Preamble to Amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74", Docket No. 1-5; Notice 10, Part 571; S106-74-Pre 6: copy attached), and therefore exempt from FMVSS-106. Please confirm that our understanding is correct.

If you wish to discuss this in more detail, or if you desire more information, please feel free to contact me at (616) 342-3400.

Sincerely,

Terry E. Teeter, P.E. Engineering Supervisor Preamble omitted.