ID: 1985-02.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/18/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Victor Felice

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 18, 1985 Mr. Victor Felice President Eurospec, Inc. 109 Treetops Circle Nanuet, New York 10954 Dear Mr. Felice: This responds to your letter of March 29, 1985, concerning two aftermarket products you intend to import. The products, which you call the "Super Klip" and the "Klumk Klip" safety belt comfort devices, consist of plastic devices which attach to the upper torso belt anchorage. The belt webbing through a wedge attached to your device. A belt user can then pull the webbing through the open wedge and close the wedge to introduce slack into the shoulder portion of the belt. You asked for the agency to review the devices and inform you of any comments or objections. As background information, let me explain that the agency does not have the authority to approve items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your devices. We do have the authority to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of vehicles or equipment covered by our standards must certify that their product complies with all of the applicable standards. Your particular aftermarket products are not covered by any of our safety belt or other standards. However, as a manufacturer of an item of motor vehicle equipment, you do have certain responsibilities concerning possible safety-related defects you or the agency discover in your products. Those responsibilities are set out in sections 151-160 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, a copy of which is enclosed. The agency is concerned that a belted occupant could use your product to reduce the effectiveness of the upper torso belt by moving the belt so close to the edge of the shoulder that the occupant could rotate out of the upper torso belt in a crash. Likewise, your product could be used to introduce excessive slack in the upper torso belt, which would also reduce its effectiveness. The instructions you provide with the "Klunk Klip" do include information about how much slack to introduce into the belt and warns users not to introduce excessive slack. The instructions for the Super Klip contain no information or warnings on belt slack. We urge you to include a warning in both your instructions to advise belt users about the consequences of introducing too much slack in the belt. I am returning the samples of your products that you enclosed with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-02.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/19/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Charles E. Gillipsie -- President, Salem Quality Equipment, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Charles E. Gillipsie President Salem Quality Equipment, Inc. 501 East 8th Street Salem, Virginia 24153-6385

This responds to your April 30, 1985 letter asking if your leasing company is allowed to occasionally rent 10- and 15-passenger vans to schools for special school activity trips. As Ms. Hom of my staff informed you in a telephone conversation on April 26, 1985, you are not prohibited by Federal statute or regulation from renting vans to schools on a one-time or very occasional basis.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. The parties directly affected by the Vehicle Safety Act are manufacturers of new school buses and persons selling new school buses. The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits those parties from selling new buses for use as school buses if those vehicles do not comply with the Federal school bus safety standards.

When Congress passed the 1974 amendments to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress adopted the following definition of a "school bus": "Schoolbus means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools...." (Emphasis added.)

Two basic considerations are relevant, therefore, to the Vehicle Safety Act's definition of a "school bus" and the applicability of the Act's requirements to school bus sellers. The first is the vehicle's passenger capacity, and second, its intended use. If you buy a new 12- or 15-passenger van to rent to schools on a regular basis, that van would be a "school bus," since it would have the passenger capacity of a "bus" and is school bus," since it would have the passenger capacity of a "bus' and is "likely to be significantly used" to carry school children. A dealer or distributor who sells you the new van would have to ensure that the van meets our school bus safety standards. Conversely, the less frequently a bus is used for school service, the less likely it is that its use is "significant." If you use your van to carry students on a very infrequent basis, as the case appears to be, then it would not bc considered a "school bus," and the van would not have to meet the school bus safety standards.

In your letter, you referred to a Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033; December 31, 1975) that amended NHTSA's regulatory definition of a "school bus" and discussed leasing arrangements. NHTSA's definition of a school bus covers buses "sold or introduced in interstate commerce for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events." The notice explained that NHTSA's definition includes buses "introduced in interstate commerce" in order to account for those situations where buses are leased to schools for transporting students. You asked for clarification of this discussion.

The term "introduction in interstate commerce" and the reference in the Federal Register notice to leasing arrangements addressed those situations where a new bus is leased by a manufacturer, distributor or dealer directly to a school or school district. In those situations, there is no sales transaction involved. When a new bus is leased to a school or school district directly from its manufacturer, distributor or dealer, the Vehicle Safety Act requires that the bus must comply with the school bus safety standards.

If you have further questions, do not hesitate to contact my office.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

April 30, 1985

Jeffrey R. Miller Office of Chief Counsel Nations Highway Traffic Administrations R5219, 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20596

Dear Mr. Miller:

We rent and lease 15 and 21 passenger vans to colleges, churches and other businesses. We have had several requests from public and private schools to rent these vehicles for special trips or small groups, normally 10 to 15 students. We have always refused because of the Preamble To Amendment To Part 571 ---- Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Recently Roanoke City asked for a van to take 11 students on a special camping trip on the Virginia Coast. We refused, so the instructor rented a motor home. One of the patrons was upset and called Deirie Hom, she advised us that we would not be in violation to rent these vehicles for a short term. I can understand the school concern because driving a large school bus from Roanoke to Washington is quite an expense and certainly not comfortable.

As a school bus distributor I certainly do not plan to sell or lease these type vehicles to a public or private school, however, I would like the opinion of your department concerning short term rental for special field trips.

Your consideration and response to this request would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

SALEM QUALITY EQUIPMENT, INC.

Charles E. Gillipsie, President

CEG/tah

ID: 1985-02.46

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Dick Kruse -- Secondary School Principals Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dick Kruse Secondary School Principals Association 1904 Association Drive Reston, Virginia 22091

This responds to your May 30, 1985 telephone call to this office asking two related questions about our school bus regulations.

Your first question asked whether the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the sale of a used commercial-type bus to a school district for use on school-related events. The answer to your question is no. The Act only applies to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Persons selling a used bus to a school district are not subject to the Act's requirement to sell certified school buses, and a used commercial-type bus, regardless of its model year, may be sold as an activity bus.

Your second question asked whether section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act is applicable to manufacturers and dealers who sell used commercial-type buses to school districts. The answer is no. Section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the manufacture and sale of any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Therefore, there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling a used commercial-type bus for school use.

Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. L. D. Pitts, Jr P. O. Box 52592 Houston, Texas 77002

Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1985, asking about the effect of our regulations on a product you would like to manufacture. I hope the following discussion explains that effect.

You described your product, which you call a glare-shield, as a 1/8-inch thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. Your product is designed to be mounted inside a motor vehicle, as close to the windshield as possible, to reduce glare-related vision problems caused by the sun. You stated that your product would cover the entire windshield and is designed to be held in place by three or six latches. The latches can be released by the driver and the shield can be removed from the car.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, (49 CFR 571.205) which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Any manufacturer, dealer or other person who installs tinting films or other sun screen devices, such as the one described in your letter, in new vehicles must certify that the vehicle as altered continues to comply with the requirements of the standard. 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.

After a vehicle is sold to the consumer, owners may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, an owner may install any device regardless of whether the installation adversely affects light transmittance. The agency does, however, urge owners not to install equipment which would render inoperative the compliance of a vehicle with our standards. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens on their vehicles.

If a manufacturer, dealer, distributor or motor vehicle repair business installs the sun screen device for the owner of a used vehicle, then S108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act may apply. That section provides that none of those persons may knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Violation of the "render inoperative" provision can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

P. O. Box 52592 Houston Texas 77002 March 12, 1985

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing about a product that I would like to manufacture and market in the United States. Since the product is for use on vehicles being driven on public roads, I respectfully request your comments as to whether or not you think the product is in compliance with the laws as they are now written.

The product name is glare-shield. Its' purpose is to reduce motor vehicle accidents. It functions on the same principal as do sunglasses. except it has several advantages over sunglasses. Some people have vision defects for which prescription sunglasses cannot be made. Other people would prefer a glare-shield rather than sunglasses because of the fatigue caused by the physical discomfort of the sunglasses while being worn.

A glare--shield is made from a 1/8" thick sheet of "Lexan" plastic with a special scratch resistant coating. It is the same plastic manufactured by the General Electric Company and known as MR-50T4. Lexan MR-50T4 sheeting has been successfully tested for compliance with FMVSS-217 by bus manufacturers (A.M. General Corporation, General Motor Truck and Coach and Flxible/Rohr). MR-50T4 is approved by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. MR-50T4 meets or exceeds the requirements of items 4 and 5 of FMVSS-205.

A glare-shield can come in either one or two pieces, depending on the vehicle. A glare-shield is large enough in size to cover the entire area of the windshield of the vehicle it was designed to fit. A glare-shield is mounted on the inside of the vehicle as close to the windshield as possible. It is mounted in such a position that it does not interfere with the defroster device and can actually aid in its' operation, by directing more air toward the windshield. A glare-shield is not a permanent installation and can be removed for night driving in less than ten (10) seconds. Three or six stainless steel latches are used to hold the glare-shield in place. depending on whether it is a one or two piece unit. These latches are separately and permanently mounted to the vehicle using stainless steel rivets and rubber washers. Each latch has been designed to support the full weight of the glare-shield, should the other two latches not be functioning for some unknown reason. The latches cannot be accidentally opened by vibration, because they are mounted in rubber. Stainless steel sheet metal guards are attached to the edge of the glare-shield in the area where the latches make contact, in order to prevent damage to the coating on the Lexan. A vinyl molding is glued around the edge of the glareshield, to prevent the "Lexan" from coming in contact with any hard surface of the vehicle which could cause rattling from road vibration. The light transmission of various glare-shields will be equal to the various shades obtained from sunglasses found on the market today. The driver will decide which light transmission percentage is best for him, just as he now does when choosing sunglasses.

The main function of a glare-shield is to reduce the blinding glare from the sun at both sun-up and sun-down. The second important function is to reduce driver fatigue caused by reflections of shiny surfaces on a sunny day. An added benefit of using glare-shield is that windshields will no longer be tinted on their top part, or lightly tinted all over, which is a common practice today to reduce daytime glare. This tinting of windshields is bad, of course, because it reduces the driver's visibility at night. Another advantage of a glare-shield is that in the event of an accident, it will keep the driver's and passenger's heads from coming in contact with the windshield which usually results in facial lacerations. The glare-shield also helps in preventing a body being thrown through the windshield. The last advantage of a glare-shield, is that it acts as a protective shield against windshield glass fragments and foreign objects which strike and may penetrate the windshield.

Your immediate attention is requested on this project, as it appears to all those who have heard about glare-shields that they can reduce the number of accidents, and reduce bodily injuries and deaths, when accidents do occur.

Sincerely yours, L. D. Pitts, Jr. LDP/bjs

ID: 1985-02.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Pat Reese -- Mannesmann Pipe and Steel Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 24, 1985 Mr. Pat Reese Mannesmann Pipe & Steel Corp. 1900 Post Oak Blvd., 18th Floor Houston, TX 77056

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR 571.120). Specifically, you indicated you were writing on behalf of Mannesmann Kronprinz, a German branch of your company which manufactures wheels. You noted that section S5.2(d) of Standard No. 120 requires rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars to be marked with the name, trademark or symbol identifying the rim manufacturer, and asked if this requirement meant that the German branch of your company had to register its logo or trademark with this agency. Standard No. 120 does not require manufacturers to register trademarks whose vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment are imported into the United States to file a designation of agent with NHTSA, and this designation must include a listing of the marks, trade names or other designations of origin used by the manufacturer on its products. A check of our files shows that no such designation has ever been filed by Mannesmann Kronprinz. Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 sets forth the rim marking requirements applicable to all rims for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. One of the items of information required to be marked on such rims is "a designation that identifies tha manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol;" S5.2(d). This information allows the agency and the public to identify the manufacturer of the rim if there is some problem with it. The use of a trademark or symbol is allowed, instead of the manufacturer's name, because the agency can easily determine the identity of the manufacturer from the trademark or symbols would be registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In the case of foreign manufacturers, 49 CFR 551.45 requires them to file a designation of agent with this agency. One of the items of information required to be included in the designation agent is a listing of the marks, trade names, or other designations of origin" which appear on any of the manufacturer's products in lieu of its legal name. Both 49 CFR 551.45 and 15 U.S.C. 1399(e) require all foreign manufacturers to file a designation of agent with NHTSA before importing motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment, including wheels, into the United States. I have enclosed copies of the regulation and the statute for your reference. As you will see Part 551 specifies that the designation of agent must contain the following six items of information: 1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on Mannesmann Kronprinz under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made; 2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address for Mannesmann Kronprinz; 3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin for any of Mannesmann Kronprinz's products which do not bear its name; 4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by Mannesmann Kronprinz; 5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed by Mannesmann Kronprinz, and the agent may be an individual, firm, or U.S. corporation; and 6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent. Further, 49 Cfr Part 566, Manufacturer Identification (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment covered by our standards to provide certain information to NHTSA. The required information is simply the manufacturer's full name, address, and a brief description of the motor vehicle equipment it manufactures. Should you have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosures

ID: 1985-02.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: James H. Westlake -- National Automobile Dealers Assocaition

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. James H. Westlake Associate Director American Truck Dealers Division National Automobile Dealers Association 8400 Westpark Drive McLean, VA 22102

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Mr. Stephen Wood of this office asking the following three questions about rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks.

"1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered 'rebuilding' when the three major components (engine, transmission and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from 'rebuilding' to 'first stage manufacturer'?"

Neither the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("the Act") nor the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards ("safety standards") contain the terms "rebuilding" and "first stage manufacturer". Your question, however, is clear: when new and used components are used in rebuilding a heavy truck, at what point does the truck become a "new" vehicle which must comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks.

The agency's regulation on Combining new and used components, 49 CFR 571.7(e), provides:

"When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured for purposes of compliance with the safety standards and other provisions of the Act unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle".

Thus, in terms of your question, if the three major components are reused in the rebuilding process and at least two of the three came from the same vehicle, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply even if a new cab is used. But if one of the three components is new, or if all are used and came from three different motor vehicles, then the standards apply and the truck must meet them, and be certified as meeting them, upon final assembly.

Your reference to "first stage manufacturer" implies that there may be rebuilding fact situations in which the process is completed by a person other than the manufacturer who initiated it. If the rebuilt truck is "new", then its assemblers are subject to 49 CFR Part 568 Vehicle Manufactured in Two or More Stages. If the truck meets the definition of "incomplete vehicle", then the "incomplete vehicle manufacturer" is required to furnish the specified compliance information necessary for certification to the "intermediate stage manufacturer" or the "final stage manufacturer" as the case may be (Sec. 568.3).

"2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as 'new manufacturing' what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?"

As indicated above, the truck must be completed to comply with all safety standards that apply to trucks and be certified by its assembler as so conforming in accordance with Part 567 Certification. If more than one party is involved in the remanufacturing process, each party is subject to Part 568. In addition, any party remanufacturing a truck that must be certified as conforming is required to file a statement in the form prescribed by Part 566 Manufacturer Identification.

"3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these Federal regulations?"

As provided by section 109(a) of the act, any person violating any provision of the Act or a regulation issued thereunder is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for each violation, up to $800,000 for any related series of violations. In addition, under Section 110(a) of the Act, the agency may seek to restrain the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction, or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any rebuilt truck that should have met Federal motor vehicle safety standards but in fact did not do so. Also, section 154 of the Act requires manufacturers to conduct recall campaigns and remedy any non-compliances with applicable safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 25 1985 Mr. Steve Wood Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

Thank you for your telephone assistance Friday morning, and for directing our question to the appropriate individual.

The American Truck Dealers division of the National Automobile Dealers Association represents over 1,700 medium and heavy duty truck dealers. Many of our members are engaged in the business of rebuilding and remanufacturing heavy duty trucks. On their behalf, we are requesting NHTSA provide guidance on the following questions.

1) When rebuilding a used truck with a glider kit, it is our understanding that the process is considered "rebuilding" when the three major components (engine, transmission, and rear axle) are reused in the rebuilding process. If one or more of these major components is new, does the production of the truck chassis change its legal character from "rebuilding" to "first stage manufacturer"?

2) When a truck chassis is built by a dealer and legally classified as "new manufacturing", what federal regulations must be complied with that do not apply when the vehicle is considered rebuilt?

3) What penalties exist for failing to comply with these federal regulations?

Your assistance in answering these questions and providing specific citations is greatly appreciated. If our questions require additional detail, please feel free to contact me at the above number.

Sincerely, James H. Westlake Associate Director, ATD

ID: 1985-02.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert M. Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert M. Levy Manager, Design Engineering Abex Corporation Signal-Stat Division P.O. Box 438 Somerset, New Jersey 08873-3492

Dear Mr. Levy:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, asking for clarification of an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 108 that tnis agency furnished last year to Wesbar Corp.

On May 16, 1984, Wesbar asked whether the correct minimum effective luminous lens area on stop lamps and turn signal lamps was 8 square inches or 12 square inches, when intended for use on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater. This office advised Wesbar on July 3, 1984, that, as specified in SAE J586c for stop.lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, the answer was 8 square inches. Your letter calls to our attention the fact that these SAE standards require each stop and turn signal lamp to have a minimum of 12 square inches in those vehicle configurations where two stop or turn signal lamps are mounted on the same side of the vehicle and are closer to each other than 22 inches.

Thank you for calling this oversight to our attention. Indeed, SAE J586c and J588e establish this exception to the general minimum requirement of 8 square inches. We are furnishing a copy of this letter to Wesbar and apologize for any confusion that the earlier letter has caused.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

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

ID: 1985-02.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Ojima

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 27, 1985 Mr. M. Ojima Manager Asahi Glass Company, Ltd. 1-2, Marunouchi 2-Chrome. Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo, Japan Dear Mr. Ojima: Thank you for your letter of May 8, 1985, to Administrator Steed concerning the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, that apply to glass-plastic glazing. The answers to your questions are discussed below. Your first question concerns the requirements of the boil and humidity tests that apply to glass plastic glazing. You explained that after the boil test and the humidity test, your plastic material develops a haze. You stated that the maximum haze resulting from the boil test is approximately 10 percent. However, after the sample had been left at room temperature for 24 hours, the plastic haze disappeared and the plastic "completely recovered to the original condition." As you correctly noted, Standard No. 205 requires glass-plastic glazing to pass Test No. 3, Humidity, and Test 4, Boil Test, of the American National Standard Institute's "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" Z26.1-1977, January 26, 1977 as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980, which is incorporated by reference in our standard. As explained in the preamble to the November 16, 1983, final rule setting performance requirements for glass-plastic glazing, the purpose of the humidity and boil tests is to ensure that the plastic layer of glass-plastic glazing does not delaminate when exposed to high temperatures and humidity. Since the temporary haze does not result in a permanent change in the structure of the glazing, which would occur if the glazing delaminated, we do not consider the temporary haze to be a failure of the boil or humidity tests. The glazing must, of course, comply with Test No. 17, Abrasion Resistance, as modified by Standard No. 205, which is directly meant to limit haze. Your second question concerned whether you should mark glass-plastic as "AS1" or AS14". You noted that ANSI Z26.1-1983 specifies that glass-plastic glazing should be marked "AS1", while our standard specifies the use of "AS14". Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the 1977 version of Z26.1a, July 3, 1980, and does not incorporate Z26.1-1983. Therefore, in accordance with S6.1 of Standard No. 205, you must mark glass-plastic glazing manufactured for sale in the United States with "AS14". If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gordon Bonvallet

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gordon Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, NY 13045-2040

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1985, to this Office asking whether the agency intended to eliminate the maximum allowable value for parking lamp candlepower in the amendments of November 26, 1984 which established Figure 1b.

Thank you for calling this matter to our attention. The amendment appears to have the effect you ascribe to it, though it was not the agency's intention that it do so. The maximum values of SAE J222 December 1970 are those that should apply, and we shall reinstate them in the near future.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 13, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Subject: Interpretation of Rule Making 49CFR Part 571 (Docket No. 83-12: Notice 2)

Figure 1b in the reference Docket shows a minimum allowable candlepower value of 4.0 for a one section "Parking" lamp. No maximum is indicated.

Is the intent to eliminate the allowable maximum candlepower for parking lamps or should the maximum values as listed in SAE J222 Dec. 70, referenced in FMVSS 108, be used? (SAE J222 JAN77 eliminated the maximum values.)

Very truly yours,

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division

GB/mm

ID: 1985-02.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L.R. Cederbaum

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. L.R. Cederbaum Project Engineer Sagaz Industries, Inc. 16241 N.W. 48th Avenue Miami, FL 33014

Dear Mr. Cederbaum:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, you asked if the flammability requirements set forth in section S4.3 for original equipment seat covers apply to "aftermarket" seat covers. The flammability requirements in Standard No. 302 must be met by aftermarket seat covers only if such seat covers are installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops. Those aftermarket seat covers which are installed by the vehicle owner are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 302.

Generally speaking, Standard No. 302 applies to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or in the vehicle, i.e., not to accessories added to a vehicle after such purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket seat covers may be added to vehicles, even if the addition of those seat covers causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, without violating the requirements of the Act.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter "the Safety Act"; 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ..." The flammability resistance of the original seat covers is considered an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business which installed a seat cover which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to ,000 for each violation of section 108, and each installation of a noncomplying seat cover would be considered a separate violation.

You should note that the prohibitions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design in his or her vehicle, and therefore aftermarket seat covers which are sold to and installed by owners need not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

There are two factors which ought to be considered by the manufacturers of seat covers which do not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. First is the possibility of liability under State and seat covers which complied with the flammability requirements would not have caught fire, or if those seat covers burn much more rapidly than seat covers which comply with Standard No. 302. Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related defect in those seat covers. Should such seat covers readily catch fire or burn very rapidly in situations where seat covers which satisfied the flammability requirements would not, the seat covers might well be found to contain a safety-related defect. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414) require that, when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser.

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

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 19, 1985

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 407 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTENTION Mr. Steve Kratzke Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 Par. S 4. Requirements

Dear Sir: This letter confirms our telephone conversation of February 19, 1985 in which the applicability of subparagraph S 4.1, which lists various components of the vehicle occupant compartment that shall meet the flammability requirement as described in S4.3(a) of MVSS No. 302.

It is my understanding from your statement this Standard No. 302 and its subsequent requirements do not apply to "after market automobile seatcovers."

I would appreciate letter confirmation of this fact.

Thank you for your service.

Very Truly, SAGAZ INDUSTRIES, INC.

L.R. Cederbaum, Project Engineer

LRC/tr