ID: nht76-4.29

DATE: 10/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pullman Trailmobile

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Trailmobile's August 13, 1976, question whether a trailer would be considered to be newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with applicable safety standards if it is assembled from all new materials except for axles (axle beams, spindles and brakes, and associated brake drums, wheels, seals, and bearings) from an existing trailer whose identity and ownership would be continued in the reassembled trailer.

The answer to this question is yes. The assembly of a trailer entirely from new materials except for the trailer axles does not qualify as a "repair" under NHTSA regulations (49 CFR @ 571.7(f). This regulation states that such trailers will be considered newly manufactured unless, "at a minimum, the trailer running gear assembly (axle(s), wheels, braking, and suspension) is not new . . ." In the case you describe, the suspension would be new.

SINCERELY,

Pullman Trailmobile

August 13, 1976

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Used Components in Trailer Manufacturing NHTSA Regulation @ 571.7(f), Effective July 1, 1976

Opinion is requested concerning the extent to which substitution of new components in trailer running gear assemblies taken from existing trailers is permissible under the above regulation which permits the combination of new and used highway trailer components without the re-assembled trailer being considered "newly manufactured".

A customer has tendered to Pullman Trailmobile 200 trailer running gear assemblies selected by the customer from its inventory of wrecked and damaged van trailers. The customer proposes to ship the assemblies to a Pullman Trailmobile factory, identified by the serial numbers of the existing trailers from which the running gear assemblies were taken. The customer requests Trailmobile to combine such running gear assemblies with new components to complete re-assembled van trailers which will continue to be used by the customer in its transportation business. The trailer running gear assemblies to be shipped to Pullman Trailmobile will consist of the following components:

(a) axle beam including the spindle and brake assembly;

(b) complete axle assembly (including brake drums, wheels, oil seals, bearings, etc.).

All other components of the trailer running gear assemblies have been adjudged by the customer's maintenance employees to require replacement, consistent with safe maintenance and operation practices.

Reference is made to NHTSA's discussion and evaluation of comments upon the proposed regulation published in the July 1, 1976 Federal Register; in particular, to that paragraph reviewing the comments of Firestone Corporation concerning rims and wheels. In that connection, it was stated that "The agency in no way intends to modify safe maintenance and operation practices by its action. Substitution of new components or of use of old components is not advocated or discouraged by this action". NHTSA also reported that "frame attachment components" were excluded from the description of running gear assemblies for fear that persons might reuse damaged attachment hardware.

Based upon the foregoing, a favorable opinion is requested that reuse of the above described components of trailer running gear assemblies in combination with sufficient new running gear and other components required to produce re-assembled van trailers does not result in a "newly manufactured" trailer; assuming, of course, that the re-assembled trailer will be used by the owner of the existing trailer which will continue to be identified by its existing serial number.

If additional facts or information in connection with the agency's determination is necessary or desirable, please call upon this writer for assistance.

Edgar E. Lungren Jr.

ID: nht76-4.3

DATE: 01/15/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Burlington Management Service Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Burlington Fleet Service's December 9, 1975, question whether the combination of usable parts from several existing vehicles into one functioning vehicle constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

The answer to your question is no. For an assembly operation to constitute manufacture, there must be a substantial proportion of new or fundamentally rebuilt parts. In this case, no new parts, other than minor materials such as hoses and gaskets, are involved in the assembly. The NHTSA therefore, does not consider the operation to constitute manufacturing subject to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.)

YOURS TRULY,

Burlington Fleet Services

December 9, 1975

U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Our organization is dedicated to keeping maintenance records for many fleets throughout the nation and as part of our service, we attempt to keep our customers advised of new government regulations and how these affect their maintenance practices. At this time, we require clarification of one of your new rulings -- namely, that pertaining to rebuilding trucks using new cabs (glider kits).

It is our understanding that when using glider kits, that two of the three power-line components must be from the same vehicle; otherwise the vehicle will be classified as new and require certification under such standards as 121.

My specific question is, what happens in the case of canabalization, that is, where two or more units are disassembled and reassembled as one, or remanufactured to make a 'new' vehicle?

In summary, when a cab, frame rail, and/or front suspension from one unit is used in conjunction with an engine, transmission and drive axle from one or more other units, does this comprise remanufacturing and will the vehicle be required to meet the same specifications as if a glider kit was used?

Today, with many fleets postponing the purchase of new equipment, extending the life of older units through such practices raises many questions, some of which are economical and, in your case, one which is specifically legal. This question is perplexing both for us and many of our fleets, and requires further clarification. Would you please advise this writer as to your ruling?

We would appreciate being on your mailing list for new or proposed rulings in these areas, for we believe that we have much to offer, especially with the large data base we maintain in this area.

J. E. Paquette Director

ID: nht76-4.30

DATE: 06/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: City of Marion

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 6, 1976, request for permission to remove the brake system from two trucks that were manufactured with brake systems conforming to the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

From the description of the problems you have encountered with the vehicles, I assume that you do not intend to remove the entire brake system, but only one or more antilock systems installed in satisfaction of the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)(A)) prohibits, with one exception, knowing disconnection of the antilock system by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business. Your dealer's refusal to remove the devices is probably based on this prohibition.

A person that does not fall into these categories is not prohibited from disconnection of the systems. Other State or Federal requirements, such as those of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety for operation in interstate commerce, may prohibit disconnection. In any case, the NHTSA urges that you not disconnect safety devices without consulting the vehicle manufacturer with regard to the safety configuration of the vehicle.

SINCERELY,

CITY OF MARION

May 6, 1976

Gordon Lindquist Regional Office National Highway Safety Administration

The City of Marion purchased two new Ford trucks in 1975 for use in the Sanitation Department, Serial No's N 80 FVW 47128 and N 80 FVW 47129. These trucks are used for garbage pickup within the city and the brake systems are presenting problems. As I understand this is the Federal Regulation SM2SF-121. I have asked the local Ford dealer, Kennedy Ford, Inc., to remove this system as we can not keep the trucks on the street due to downtime caused by this system. They, of course, refused to do so because of the regulation.

The purpose of this letter is a request for permission from you to allow the system to be removed.

These trucks have been out of service three times since the purchase and each time is for two to three weeks. I feel this brake system is a safety hazard when used for the purpose stated above.

Thank you for your consideration.

Charles N. Eblin Service Director

ID: nht76-4.31

DATE: 10/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the Truck Body and Equipment Association's letter of September 14, 1976, inquiring as to the effect of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, on State laws relating to air brake performance. You ask whether the Commonwealth of Massachusetts can impose requirements pertaining to parking brake release on trucks and buses which differ from provisions contained in the Federal standard.

I believe that the question you raised is identical to a question raised by the State of California, International Harvester Company, and White Motor Corporation in October 1974, prior to the effective dates of Standard No. 121. It was our opinion at that time that promulgation by a State of a more restrictive parking brake requirement providing for the installation of a release not specified in Standard No. 121 was prohibited by @ 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your information.

SINCERELY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

September 14, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The state of Massachusetts has established a law requiring an air brake equipped truck sold in that state, to have a system that differs from those presently designed and developed for FMVSS 121 compliance. The difference lies in the Massachusetts requirement that the air brake system be equipped with an additional air reservoir or "third tank" capable of supplying air to the spring set parking brakes in case of an air brake failure. (See Attachment # I).

At the present time, all new trucks equipped with air brakes are required by Department of Transportation through National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to be completed in accordance with the performance levels found in FMVSS 121. As a result, all new trucks have air systems that are capable of meeting the application and release times, system build up times and the spring brake modulation requirements found in FMVSS 121.

The Massachusetts law was instituted to provide an additional means by which the spring brakes may be released during emergency situations. This release requirement is already supplied on all new chassis produced today in compliance with FMVSS 121 by a mechanical means.

The Massachusetts law requires that the existing 121 system be repiped to accommodate the new third tank and emergency release circuit. Any modification to the complex 121 system increases the likelihood of system damage or the modification may cross connect the split air system thus defeating the intent of two separate brake systems.

The chances of a modified system failure seems more likely than a FMVSS 121 brake lock up on a railroad grade crossing.

In previous correspondence the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel, has indicated that a state can not set any motor vehicle safety standard that is in variance with an existing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. (See Attachment # II).

We at the Truck Body and Equipment Association feel that the Massachusetts requirement for a modified brake system is inconsistent with the requirements outlined in FMVSS 121 and would appreciate the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's opinion of the legality of this state regulation.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ATTACHMENTS

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles

August 13, 1976

Dear Sir:

In reply to your inquiry as to brake requirements on commercial vehicle chassis, I am enclosing a copy of that portion of Massachusetts law in regards to brakes.

If a vehicle is equipped with air brakes and the parking or emergency brake portion of the brake system is a spring loaded brake, Massachusetts requires a third air tank and there must be a check valve between your main source (wet/dry tank or tanks) of supply and the third tank.

Under emergency conditions when there is a loss of the service brake, the spring loaded brake is automatically applied. To move the vehicle would require the winding down to release the spring loaded brake. Our requirement of a third tank allows 4 to 6 quick release operations so that the vehicle can be safely moved out of traffic, a roadway, a railroad crossing or an intersection.

Any vehicle equipped with air brakes and a spring loaded parking/emergency brake must be equipped with the third tank for registration and operation in Massachusetts. If we find a vehicle is not so equipped (third tank) we will not permit it to be registered. If it has been registered, statutory law allows the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend the registration. No consideration is given relative to the reinstatement of the suspended registration until the brake system is in compliance and examined by an inspector from this department.

I hope this information will be of some help to you.

Charles V. Mulhern Supervisor Vehicle Inspection Branch

provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than ten nor more than one hundred dollars.

@ 7. Brakes, Lights and Other Equipment

[MASSACHUSETTS REGULATION OMITTED]

March 21, 1975

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Recently several members of the Truck Body and Equipment Association have raised questions concerning state versus federal motor vehicle lighting requirements.

The vehicle in question is a multipurpose passenger vehicle less than eighty (80) inches wide, equipped with a raised roof.

Our question is as follow: Can a state require a motor vehicle to be equipped with lights not required under FMVSS #1007

Thanking you in advance for your help, I am,

Byron Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

ID: nht76-4.32

DATE: 12/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of Police - Detroit

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 9, 1976, asking whether Federal regulations permit manufacturers to equip police vehicles with "push bumpers" and with bullet-proof shields located between the front and rear seating compartments.

Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, establishes requirements for the impact resistance and the configuration of front and rear vehicle surfaces of passenger cars. This standard does not prohibit "push bumpers" and manufacturers are free to equip passenger cars with any bumper design they choose as long as the requirements of Standard No. 215 are met.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing for use in motor vehicles, including the permissible locations for the various types of glazing. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance requirements. Therefore, vehicle manufacturers are permitted to equip vehicles with the bullet-proof shields mentioned in your letter if such shields are constructed with glazing that conforms to the requirements in Standard No. 205.

You also asked whether the police department or a business could install the equipment in question. If the equipment is installed after the first sale of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, the Federal safety standards would no longer be applicable under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1). However, @ 108 (a)(2)(A) prohibits, with one exception, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative a safety device or element of design that has been installed in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard.

Therefore, whether or not a business could install the equipment depends on the nature of the business. If the business is a "motor vehicle repair business", it can only install the "push bumpers" and shields if such installation does not knowingly render inoperative devices or elements of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with applicable safety standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) defines "motor vehicle repair business" as any person who holds himself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation.

I have enclosed copies of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 215. I have underscored the pertinent sections of Standard No. 205 (and the ANS 226 standard incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205) for your information.

SINCERELY, Department of Police Detroit, Michigan

Hugh Oates National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to our phone conversation on November 1, 1976, the Equipment Control Section of Detroit's Police Department has experienced a degree of reluctance by the auto manufacturers in providing police vehicles with specialized equipment. The purpose of this communique is to resolve the following two questions:

(1) The auto manufacturers state that per regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, they are unable to equip police vehicles with a special "push bumper". To more clearly delinate this concern, enclosed please find several photographs of the "push bumpers" and how they are attached to the car's bumper system. The Detroit Police Department prefers to order vehicles from the manufacturers with the "push bumper" attached. In furtherance of this desire, a ruling by your administration allowing the manufacturers to construct police vehicles with "push bumpers" and sell same to our department, would clearly alleviate this dilemma.

(2) The auto manufacturers also state that they cannot sell vehicles equipped with a bullet proof shield located between the front and rear seating compartments. My research uncovered no federal statute or regulation prohibiting this. Your advise on this matter would clear any ambiguity.

In responding to the above requests, assuming the auto companies could not lawfully sell us police vehicles with any of the above special equipment, I would appreciate you probing the possibility of the City installing such equipment subsequent to our purchasing the vehicles, or having a private business perform these tasks. Please note that both the "push bumper" and bullet proof shield are removed from the vehicle when same is later sold at public auction.

If further information is needed, please feel at liberty to call me (313-224-4426).

JOSEPH E. PAPELIAN Legal Advisor Section

cc: INSPECTOR JOHN DOMM

ID: nht76-4.33

DATE: 05/07/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Free Enterprise Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 12, 1976, request for a listing of Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacturer of a fiberglass hardtop for installation on a Jeep. I am assuming that this top is an aftermarket item and is not incorporated by the Jeep Corporation as the vehicle roof of its product.

The only Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to this item of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment is Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, 49 CFR 571.205. Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing materials used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, including a vehicle top such as you describe. Any glazing material used in the construction of your Jeep top must be certified as being in compliance with Standard No. 205, even though the top itself does not have to be certified. Generally, the prime glazing manufacturer or the glazing fabricator certifies the glazing, so your main concern as manufacturer of the Jeep top is to make certain that you use glazing that has been certified as being in compliance with the standard. If you obtain sheets of glazing from a prime glazing manufacturer and fabricate or mold the glazing yourself, you must mark and certify the glazing as specified in paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. A copy of the standard is enclosed for your information.

Enclosure

ATTACH.

March 12, 1976

Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Fiberglass Jeep Top - Safety Requirements

Dear Chief Council:

Our company is presently preparing to mass produce and market a fiberglass hardtop for Jeep Model CJ-5. The top will include five windows, three of which open, two side doors, and one rear lift-up door.

Before we market any tops or commit ourselves irretrievably to a particular form, we need to find out what safety regulations might apply to our product. Therefore, please send us a listing of what requirements for general construction and materials (reinforcement, glass, crash tests, etc.) would apply. In particular, what do the regulations have to say about "suicide" doors (or, doors hinged at the back).

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Paula J. Redford (Mrs.) -- Manager, Free Enterprise Company

ID: nht76-4.34

DATE: 07/13/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: "Lucite" Acrylic Sheet Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 9, 1976, concerning the certification and marking requirements for glazing specified in Section 6 of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You asked whether the standard prohibits use of the "DOT" symbol and manufacturer's code number by anyone other than a "prime glazing material manufacturer," as that term is defined in paragraph S6.1.

Our letter to Dupont explained the separate certification and marking requirements that are applicable to glazing prepared by prime glazing material manufacturers, distributors, and vehicle manufacturers. The standard specifies that the "DOT" symbol shall be placed on glazing that is designed by the prime glazing material manufacturer as a component of any specific motor vehicle. The agency's interpretations of several years ago pointed out that the standard requires a person other than a prime glazing manufacturer who cuts glazing materials to mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 and to certify it in accordance with section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. These interpretations emphasized that a person who cuts and shapes the glazing material received from a prime glazing manufacturer should not include the "DOT" symbol in his marking and certification.

At the time of the earlier interpretations, the NHTSA considered it necessary from the standpoint of enforcement to distinguish between glazing that had been manufactured by the prime glazing manufacturer for use in specific motor vehicles and glazing that had been cut, shaped, or otherwise altered by another party before installation. The agency was also concerned that the use of the "DOT" symbol by anyone other than the prime glazing manufacturer would be misleading and could create confusion.

Since that time, the certification procedures have become more widely understood and uniformly practiced throughout the industry, and this has aided the "traceability" of glazing materials for enforcement purposes. Therefore, the agency no longer prohibits the use of the "DOT" symbol and the prime glazing manufacturer's code number by the distributor or manufacturer who cuts the glazing, if the prime glazing manufacturer grants permission for such use of his code number to the distributor or manufacturer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY

INCORPORATED April 9, 1976

Mr. Frank A. Berndt, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Adm. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have received a letter written by Robert L. Carter, Assoc. Adm., Motor Vehicle Programs reference N41-42, a copy of which is enclosed, relative to identification of plastic glazing under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

Considerable quantities of "Lucite" * AR abrasion resistant sheet are used for bus glazing as well as motorcycles and recreational vehicles. We supply large sheets of glazing material which are fabricated into bus windows by our Official Distributors. The bus manufacturers have required that these suppliers hot stamp the windows with a DOT number in addition to the other required identification and we have authorized these Official Distributors to use our DOT number 80. A literal reading of Mr. Carter's letter would seem to prohibit such practices. This has resulted in confusion and could prove to be quite costly to our business. If the fabricators are prohibited from using the manufacturers' DOT numbers, it will mean the bus manufacturers will have to revise all of their glazing blueprints and specifications removing the DOT number identification. We would like to avoid this extreme if possible. In discussing this with the enforcement group of NHTSA, I was informed that "while the DOT number was not required to be used by our Distributors, it would not be specifically prohibited."

* Du Pont Co. trademark

We are uncertain which interpretation is correct or if they are compatible and have been advised to request from you a clarification and official opinion.

Would you please review the above and advise whether or not our Official Distributors can use the Du Pont DOT number 80 on glazing of "Lucite" AR going into bus and other transportation glazing in order to comply with bus manufacturers' specifications.

Sincerely,

Russell H. Berry -- Marketing Specialist, "Lucite" Acrylic Sheet Products

ID: nht76-4.35

DATE: 07/30/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sun Control Products of Virginia, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 11, 1976, request that Madico solar protective polyester film be "designated as acceptable" under Ford Motor Company's DOT code number for the Ford product "Privacy Glass" or, in the alternative, that the Madico product be assigned a separate DOT glazing code number. You state that the Madico film achieves the same effect as "Privacy Glass" for reduction of solar heat, glare and fading.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Section S6 of the standard outlines the procedures required for certification and marking of glazing materials, to certify that the glazing complies with all the requirements of the standard. Paragraph S6.2 of that section requires certain manufacturers to mark their glazing materials with the "DOT" symbol and a manufacturer's code number, which is assigned to the manufacturer by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration upon written request. Each code number is the unique mark of a single manufacturer, and is intended to facilitiate the traceability of the glazing to the original manufacturer. Therefore, Ford's code number (DOT - 75 FM-M73) cannot be used by Madico or by another glazing manufacturer or distributor.

Your letter states that the Madico product is a solar protective film that is "bonded or laminated to existing, installed clear glass." We conclude that this "protective film" is not glazing material and is not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 205. Therefore, a glazing manufacturer's code number cannot be assigned for the product.

Whether or not the Madico protective film is otherwise subject to Federal requirements depends upon who uses the product. If a vehicle manufacturer or a dealer places the film on glazing in a vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, he must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

On the other hand, the vehicle owner may alter his vehicle as he pleases, so long as he adheres to all State requirements. The owner could install the protective film on glazing in his vehicle whether or not such installation affected compliance with Standard No. 205. It should be noted, however, that section 108 (a) (2) (A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides that no manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Therefore, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business may knowingly install the Madico protective film on a vehicle for its owner in a manner that would destroy the conformity of the glazing with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SUN CONTROL PRODUCTS OF VIRGINIA, INC.

June 11, 1976

James B. Gregory, Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

It is my understanding and observation that the Ford Motor Company is supplying and selling as an option their "Privacy Glass" for their Club Wagons and Econoline Vans in the 1976 Model year.

The "Privacy Glass" carries the following identification on the installed glass:

"Laminated Safety Glass, 'Carlite', F-6D, R-AS3, DOT-75 FM-M73"

It is my further understanding that the DOT Code number above indicates that certain Solar Optical Properties of the "Privacy Glass" have been supplied by Ford Motor Company (Or the Glass manufacturer) to DOT before DOT issued the code number.

Attached is a copy of the manufacturer's (MADICO) Product Specification sheet of solar protective polyester film, Non-Reflective Laminated FADE SHIELD SERIES FSLW 100-20 Gray. This solar protective film is bonded or laminated to existing, installed clear glass, and attains the same effect as the "Privacy Glass" for reduction of solar heat-gain, solar glare and solar fading.

It is my understanding that the solar optical properties of MADICO'S FSLW-100-20 Gray are equal to or within reasonable tolerance and range of the solar properties of the Ford Motor Company's "Privacy Glass" under DOT-75 FM-M-73.

Accordingly, it is requested that MADICO'S FSLW-100-20 Gray, solar protective film be assigned or designated as acceptable under DOT-75 FM-M73, as an alternate to "Privacy Glass" for installation on existing clear glass of vehicles under the same provisions.

If it is not possible for FSLW-100-20 Gray, solar protective film to be included under DOT-75 FM-M73, it is requested that a DOT CODE NUMBER be issued for FSLW-100-20 Gray.

Thank you for your cooperation, and we look forward to an an early reply.

Cordially, Mark T. Lerche President

[PRODUCT SPECIFICATION SHEET OMITTED]

ID: nht76-4.36

DATE: 03/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Almac Plastic Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1976, to Mr. Guy Hunter of my staff, concerning the use of Lucite AR (plastic) glazing materials in rear windows of buses.

Your state that a rubber harness has been designed to allow the plastic glazing to be inserted into the rear window openings of the bus. You further state that once inserted into the rubber harness, the glazing can be easily pushed out and therefore would fall within the definition of readily removable windows. Thus, plastic glazing could be used in such windows.

It is not clear whether the rear bus window you described in your letter would be classified as a readily removable window as defined in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. However, if the glazing can be pushed out as easily as you say, it is clear that it would not meet the window retention requirements specified in FMVSS No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

Standard No. 205 specifies requirements for glazing and the vehicle locations in which various types of glazing may be used. The standard prohibits the use of plastic glazing in rear windows of buses unless they are readily removable as defined in the standard. However, in response to a petition submitted by General Motors Corporation, we are currently preparing a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that would amend the standard to permit the use of plastic glazing in all bus windows except windshields and windows to the immediate left and right of the driver. We anticipate that this NPRM will be published in the Federal Register in the near future.

A copy of Standard No. 205 and Standard No. 217 were previously mailed to you. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 26, 1976

Guy Hunter -- NHTSA

Dear Mr. Hunter:

This is to thank you for the courtesy shown to the writer on the phone. The subject of discussion that we had, was concerning the usage of Lucite AR material on the rear windows of buses.

As discussed, the original window on the rear of most buses is quite expensive and due to vandalism, the windows are cracked by rocks and bottles are extremely dangerous to passengers due to the splintering.

I am enclosing herewith a schematic brochure that we have created which will more clearly indicate this subject.

To accommodate the AA, AC, AD, AB and AE windows a rubber harness has been designed that allows these windows to be inserted. These windows, once inserted into a rubber harness can be easily pushed out with pressure and therefore, can fall into the classification of readily removable windows.

This is the major point that I tried to make over the phone. I feel that rear windows can comply with your regulation of usage of Lucite AR windows and are identical to the regulations that permit the usage of Lucite AR on your side windows.

If any of this information need further clarification, feel free to call upon Mr. Russell H. Berry of DuPont, the manufacturers of Lucite AR, whose telephone number is 302-774-4639. Or feel free to call the writer Mr. Jack Manne, Engineering Department of Almac Plastics at 212-937-1300.

Mr. Berry is extremely knowledgable on this total subject and I am sure that you would find him extremely helpful in any interpretation that is required.

Either he or I would be pleased to visit with you in Washington, DC if a meeting would assist your decision in this subject.

Thanking you kindly for any attention you give this matter, we beg to remain

Very truly yours,

Jack Manne -- Engineering Department, ALMAC PLASTICS INC.

Enc.

CC: R. H. Berry -- DuPont

(Brochure Omitted)

ID: nht76-4.37

DATE: 03/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Werner Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION