ID: nht81-2.7

DATE: 03/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. Roger Fry, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

W. Roger Fry, Esq. Rendigs, Fry, Kiely & Dennis 900 Central Trust Bank Tower Fourth & Vine Streets Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Dear Mr. Fry:

This responds to your January 23, 1981, letter concerning tires used with multipiece rims. Specifically, you asked if this Department has considered whether tires should have a warning concerning use with mismatched multipiece rim assemblies.

We have not considered this question, nor have our studies of multipiece rim explosions considered the tires involved. The agency has determined through its investigations that mismatched multipiece rim assemblies are dangerous. These mismatched assemblies are highly prone to explosive separation, regardless of the nature of the tire mounted on them. Accordingly, our efforts have been directed toward labeling requirements for rim components (see the enclosed copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120) in an effort to reduce the incidence of mismatched multipiece rim assemblies. There are no labeling requirements for tires which specifically warn against use with mismatched multi-piece rim assemblies.

Per your request, I have enclosed a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (99 CFR S 571.119). Section S6.5 of this standard specifies the marking requirements for these tires. This standard took effect on March 1, 1975, and the enclosed copy represents the requirements which were applicable from that date to December 31, 1975.

This regulation does somewhat restrict the markings a manufacturer may put on the sidewall of its tires. For instance, the manufacturer cannot list more than one size designation (S6.5(c)) or more than one maximum load rating for single and dual loads (S6.5(d)). However, a manufacturer is free to include safety information in addition to that specified in section S6.5. Thus, a manufacturer might choose to print on the sidewall of its tires that the tires should only be used with a specified rim size or type. Such an additional warning need not be approved by this agency. In fact, this agency does not offer advance approval that a tire's markings comply with the requirements of Standard 119. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine that its tires are in compliance with applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance.

If you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 23, 1981

United States Dept. of Transporation National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20591

Gentlemen:

I am involved in a matter in which I represent the manufacturer of a truck tire which was on a vehicle when a multi-piece rim suddenly came off and critically injured someone in the immediate vicinity of the tire and rim. The rim had been assembled, in some manner with incompatible parts from different manufacturers, which parts combined both two-piece and three-piece rim assembly parts.

My question of you surrounds the tire itself. Has the Department addressed the question of whether or not the tires shou1d have any kind of warning regarding use with either mismatched multi-piece rim assemblies, or multi-piece rim assemblies generally?

I would be very interested in seeing your regulations and requirements governing data which is to be legible on the tire itself, auch as tire size, maximum air pressure and identifying marks. Could you send me your regulations which we in force in 1975?

Do your regulations restrict the printing on tires to the specific items covered in your regulations, or is a tire manufacturer free to add and delete other messages?

Must "other messages" be approved by you?

Have your studies of injuries with multi-piece rim assemblies included consideration of the tires themselves? If so, to what extent?

Thank you very much for any help you are ab1e to give me on this.

Very truly yours,

RENDIGS, FRY, KIELY & DENNIS

W. Roger Fry

WRF:rst

ID: nht81-2.8

DATE: 03/24/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Traders

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 17, 1981, letter in which you requested information from this agency concerning "the grading standards applicable to truck tires." We have issued Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 Code of Federal Regulations @ 575.104) for passenger car tires which specify labeling information concerning the tire's treadwear, traction and heat resistance. However, these grading standards apply only to passenger car tires and, therefore, would not be applicable to the truck tires you purchase.

There are, however, performance requirements applicable to truck tires, set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119 (49 Code of Federal Regulations @ 571.119), a copy of which is enclosed. The manufacturer of the truck tire must certify that the imported tire complies with the requirements of this standard by labeling the symbol "DOT" on the sidewall of the tire, according to the requirement of section S6.5(a) of the enclosed standard. This information may not be especially helpful to your company in comparing the price quotations, since every tire must have this certification to be legally imported into the United States.

Should you need any further information concerning the requirements applicable to truck tires, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

INTERNATIONAL TRADERS

February 17, 1981

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

We are in the process of gathering quotations for the import of truck tires for resale to heavy hauling trucking companies in the United States. We would appreciate receiving from you the grading standards for these tires.

If you have any forms that are necessary for us to complete for you, please send these as well.

Thank you.

Very truly yours, Rusty D. Hitch

ID: nht81-2.9

DATE: 03/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Koito Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 12, 1981, asking whether the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp would be permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions) Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of the standard as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Paragraph 5.2 of J580 states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens."

The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles. We therefore view the prohibition of J580 as applicable to use of any sealed beam headlamp, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is installed.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicity permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

The agency therefore has concluded that no motorcycle headlamp may have a glass shield in front of it when in use.

ID: nht81-3.1

DATE: 07/26/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 19, 1981, letter making several comments about the agency's plan to modify Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, as it applies to maintenance access panels in school buses. I want to apologize for the delay in responding to your letter which was inadvertently combined with another agency action.

First, you disagree with an agency statement that manufacturers have taken advantage of the existing maintenance access panel exemption from the standard's requirements. The agency's concern arises from several types of practices. Several manufacturers have produced buses with panels that have no wiring or other mechanisms behind them requiring maintenance. Other manufacturers have declared almost the entire rear walls of their buses as access panels. We believe that this is beyond the scope of the exemption of maintenance access panels from the standard's requirements.

Second, you ask several questions about supporting data for the standard and our planned modification of the standard. The agency is gathering information at this time and will make that data public when and if a rulemaking notice is issued.

Finally, you refer to unspecified agency statements relating to enforcement issues of noncomplying buses. We are unable to respond to this series of questions, because we are not immediately familiar with the correspondence to which you refer. If you could be more specific in your reference and in your questions, we would be happy to respond to you. If the correspondence to which you refer is from our Enforcement office, you might want to direct your inquiry to them.

SINCERELY,

School Bus Manufacturers Institute

January 19, 1981

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The School Bus Manufacturers Institute, SBMI, which represents manufacturers who produce the majority of all school buses is concerned over certain interpretive rulemaking actions and unfounded criticism that have recently appeared in NHTSA correspondence.

First, in a letter of December 19, 1979 (NOA-30), NHTSA states, in paragraph two, that is has "discovered through its compliance testing that most school bus manufacturers have been taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the Standard."

The SBMI objects strenuously to the implications of this statement, that "most school bus manufacturers" have in some underhanded or dishonest manner sought to evade their obligations to fulfill a legal and moral obligation, by cheapening or changing their bus structures to take advantage of a "loop hole" in the standard. The true facts of the matter are as follows:

1. The NHTSA was requested to join with members of the industry in interpreting the design requirements of school buses to meet the directives of the various Standards. The NHTSA declined, stating that this was not their function, but that the bus manufacturers should interpret the Standards and in good faith build their vehicles accordingly.

2. The bus manufacturers then did, in good faith, change the design of their school buses to the extent necessary to meet the requirements of the Standards as they saw them but retaining the best design features where possible. In most cases, the existing access panels were retained from the original bus configurations that had been arrived at over years of building school buses to meet requirements for safe, economical and maintainable school transportation. These access panels are in almost all cases, clearly visible and need no compliance testing to determine that they are exempt from the applicable Standards. Their status may be determined by visual observation in most cases.

3. Currently, the NHTSA has decided, after 2 1/2 - 3 years of examining school buses, that they are in disagreement with the interpretation of most school bus manufacturers regarding access panel design. They have expressed the opinion that these access panels compromise the structural integrity of school buses, and have a potential for injury to occupants in the event of a wreck. Although this opinion is contrary to the great bulk of experience in school bus transportation, they have stated their intent to change or limit the exemption status of these panels as found in FMVSS 221.

In light of these facts, the SBMI denies that any of its members have attempted to take advantage of or get any special benefit from the exemption granted in FMVSS 221 for access panels in school buses. We do not deny that further changes in bus body structure can be made, but we seriously question that substantial benefit would be realized.

The NHTSA is reminded of the excellent safety record compiled by school buses, which may have been enhanced to some degree, recently, through compliance with Standards 220, 221 and 222. School buses have been built under the requirements of these standards since April, 1977. We would believe at this time that some of these vehicles have been involved in accidents, and some of these accidents have no doubt been investigated by or at request of the NHTSA. Therefore, the SBMI feels that the following questions are in order:

1. What evidence has NHTSA seen to cause or support its contention that current configurations of access panels do significantly reduce the structural integrity of school bus bodies, in the range of wreck situations that such bodies may reasonably be expected to withstand?

2. What evidence has NHTSA seen to cause or support its contention that current access panels make the bus body more hazardous for occupants in the range of wreck situations that such bodies may reasonably be expected to withstand?

3. What wreck environments, in terms of impact speeds, g-loadings, etc., has the NHTSA contemplated as the basis for FMVSS 221?

Finally, in other correspondence NHTSA has stated that certain planned designs were not in compliance with specific standards and would not qualify for exemption. However, NHTSA, using "selective enforcement", would not "find" them in noncompliance.

1. What will be the NHTSA position if such vehicles are involved in accidents causing injury, grave injury or loss of life?

2. In the event of accident of such vehicles, how will the manufacturer's liability be effected by NHTSA's finding in-advance that such design plans are in noncompliance?

3. Does NHTSA intend to rectify such a ruling by future rulemaking?

4. Does NHTSA have the moral prerogative and legal authority to apply "selective enforcement" procedure, regardless of how worthy the cause may be, to cases that are clearly in noncompliance?

5. Is NHTSA certain that a reasonable alternative cannot be found that would be in compliance?

Your timely consideration of these matters, which represent the majority view of the SBMI members, is respectfully requested for future guidance.

Berkley C. Sweet President TBEA

ID: nht81-3.10

DATE: 08/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 25 1981 NOA-30

Roger E. Maugh, Director Automotive Safety Office Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of my staff requesting an interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You ask whether you are correct in your belief that the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of the standard apply to the seat belt anchorages used in your planned 1982-model Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of the Standard specifies location requirements for the seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies in those installations in which the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame, and the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2 apply in installations in which the seat belt does bear upon the seat frame. On the 1982 Continental passenger cars, the buckle end of the seat belt assembly passes through a "console support structure" which is connected to the bottom of the seat frame. However, you contend that since the console support structure is not a structural component of the seat frame, the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame and, consequently, that paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies.

Your interpretation of paragraphs S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 is correct. The phrase "bears upon the seat frame" as used in paragraph S4.3.1.2 refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat. As illustrated in the photographs supplied in your letter, the seat belt in the 1982-model Continental passenger cars does not bear upon the structural seat frame. Rather, the belt rests on the console support frame which is not a necessary structural component of the main seat frame, but is merely attached to the seat frame at the bottom on the inboard side. Since the seat belt is located to the side of the seat frame and does not bear upon the structural seat frame itself, the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 apply to the location of the seat belt anchorages used in the 1982 Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of Paragraph S4.3.1.2.

We note that the console support frame could easily have been attached to the transmission tunnel rather than to the seat frame. In that case, the seat belt obviously would not bear upon the seat frame. However, with such a design, the frame supporting the belt would not move with the seat, and the driver could have problems reaching the belt and positioning it properly when the seat is in certain positions. The design of the passenger seat and seat belt assembly in the 1982 Continental is very desirable because attachment of the console support frame to the seat makes the seat belt very accessible in all seat positions. The fact that the console was attached to the seat frame for convenience purposes does not mean that the console is part of the seat frame within the meaning of S4.3.1.2.

The original intent of the location requirements of FMVSS 210 was to enhance belt performance with acceptable belt comfort and convenience. The specific requirements that are the subject of this interpretation were intended to ensure that belts would not develop excessive slack if a seat structural member bent or failed during a crash, and to reduce the likelihood that the lap belt would move into the abdominal area during a crash. We trust that Ford has adequately tested the configuration that is proposed here to ensure proper performance in a crash situation.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 31, 1981

Hugh F. Oates, Jr., Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oates:

This letter is to request concurrence in Ford Motor Company's view that compliance to section S4.3 "Location" of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 properly should be evaluated under subsection S4.3.1.1 for passenger seats of a new design being introduced in 1982 model Continental passenger cars. The applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1, rather than subsection S4.3.1.2, of Standard No. 210 was discussed between Ford personnel and you and Mr. R. Hitchcock of the Administration in Dearborn yesterday. At that time you were shown the new seat design and told why we believe it presents the possibility that a compliance tester might erroneously conclude that it should be evaluated against the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2. If anchorage locations of these vehicles were to be evaluated under that subsection, rather than subsection S4.3.1.1, the location specifications could not be met.

The potential for misunderstanding arises, we believe, out of the fact that the bottom of the seat frame has connected to its inboard side a console support structure through which the inboard (buckle) end of the seat belt assembly passes. The console support structure is intended to provide a base for a "mini-console" that is to be installed on the inboard side of each half of a split bench seat. It is not a structural member of the seat frame and therefore, in our opinion, the fact that the inboard end of the belt would bear on the structure of the console support should not result in the anchorage locations being evaluated under the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2 which apply only to installations in which the "...belt bears upon the seat frame...".

As may be seen from sketches provided by the Administration to contractors evaluating compliance to Standard No. 210 (Attachment A), the routing of the seat belts contemplated by the drafters of the standard as "bearing upon the seat frame" involve configurations wholly unlike that in question. Moreover, routing the inboard end of the seat belt assembly through a console support structure that moves with the seat frame has the salutary effect of helping to best position the belt and improving belt accessibility, no matter what position the seat is adjusted to. Ford could obviate all risk of misapplication of subsection S4.3.1.2 to the new seat design by physically modifying the console support so that the inboard end of the seat belt would not bear upon its structure, but only on the trim cover. For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully submit that we should not be required to do so.

Furnished for your reference are Attachment B which depicts the lower seat frame for the 1982 Continental, Attachment C, the console support and its cover, Attachment D, the untrimmed console support attached to the seat frame, and Attachment E, a finished seat assembly.

In order to avoid needless misunderstanding about the compliance of these seat belt assemblies to the anchorage location provisions of Standard No. 210 after production commences in mid-August, I should appreciate receiving the Administration's prompt confirmation of our analysis of the applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1 to the newly designed seat and console assembly, or your expression of any grounds on which the Administration may disagree with that analysis. Sincerely

Roger E. Maugh

Attachments

ID: nht81-3.11

DATE: 08/28/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sigma Six Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 29, 1981, letter asking whether a three-wheeled vehicle would be classified as a motorcycle for purposes of complying with the motor vehicle safety standards.

The term "motorcycle" is defined in our regulations as "a motor vehicle with motive power . . . designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground" (Volume 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571.3). Since your vehicle is designed to travel on three wheels, it would be classified as a motorcycle for purposes of complying with the safety standards. The agency plans no major rulemaking at this time that would change the definition of motorcycle or the standards with which these vehicles comply.

SINCERELY,

29 July 1981

Office of the General Counsel Department of Transportation NHTSA

Dear Sirs:

We wish to obtain information on the proper procedures to obtain certification of a specialty vehicle for manufacture in the United States.

I have attached some of the sales literature describing the vehicle. I have previously talked with the rulemaking and compliance personnel at NHTSA in an attempt to clarify the problems that may be encountered.

The "Ant" is a three wheel vehicle and is currently manufactured in Britain. It is certified in the UK under category N[1], "Vehicles used for the carriage of goods and having a maximum weight not exceeding 3.5 metric tons". It is also certified for French import.

In my discussion with the rulemaking section I was told that three wheeled vehicles are currently classed as a motorcycle, however, they were under review for possible changes to the rules. The classification required to be met and any changes being made could have a major impact on the investment required to properly set up the manufacturing facility to insure that all applicable FMVSS standards are met in the vehicle engineering and manufacturing practices and procedures.

The investors are currently planning a production rate of 1000 per year in two years with a possible expansion to 5000 per year in five years.

Your attention to our problem and assistance in obtaining a solution is appreciated.

Sigma Six Inc.

Marshall Zaun President

Sales Literature Omitted.

ID: nht81-3.12

DATE: 09/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Firefly Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEPTEMBER 2, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Alex Roth The Firefly Company, Inc. 1 Marine Plaza North Bergen, New Jersey 07047

Dear Mr. Roth:

This is in reply to your letter of July 30, 1981, asking for confirmation that a vehicle you intend to produce is a "motorcycle."

The body appears to be that of the British Reliant Regal, a three-wheeled fully enclosed passenger vehicle. You intend to market your product as a battery powered three-wheeled vehicle. Although this agency once engaged in rulemaking with the intent of excluding three-wheeled vehicles of this nature from applicability of the motorcycle standards, no final rule was ever adopted. Therefore, all three-wheeled vehicles are classified as "motorcyles" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 30, 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHSTA 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are at the threshold of mass producing what we believe will be America's first low-cost, battery-powered vehicle.

The vehicle is specifically designed for city streets use and made for the 30 million multi-car families in the U.S. many of whom could do with one standard gasoline-powered car and our battery-powered vehicle to carry one or two passengers to work; to the railroad station; or to do the myriad transportation chores that lie close to the household.

If we are successful with our mass production plans, we expect to be able to retail this vehicle at under $4,000. If we do this, it will indicate the viability of the electric vehicle market and get the electric vehicle industry off dead center.

This is a two-passenger, three-wheeled vehicle with a fiberglass body. Overall length is 131 inches - height 56 inches - width 54 inches. The curb weight is estimated to be 1,200 lbs.

We have had conversations with motor vehicle commissioners in various states, all of whom indicate to us that this vehicle would be licensable as a motorcycle. Early conversations with John Carson, your safety standards engineer, also indicated to us that there were no DOT or NHSTA standards for three-wheeled vehicles of this type and that, consequently, it would be classified as a motorcycle.

We are addressing ourselves to your office to request confirmation of these facts.

I am enclosing a photograph of the preproduction prototype and would be happy to furnish you with any additional information that you might require.

Sincerely yours,

THE FIREFLY COMPANY, INC.

Alex Roth

AR:lvrn Enclosure

ID: nht81-3.13

DATE: 09/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: National Glass Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letters regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Please accept our apology for the lateness of our reply. You ask whether an installer of automotive safety glazing violates any of the regulations promulgated by the American National Standard Institute, Inc. (ANSI) or of this agency if the installer repairs damaged automotive glazing as part of his or her business.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended in 1974 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 205 establishes performance requirements for automotive glazing. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966. Glazing repair businesses, sellers of vehicles or automotive glazing, and manufacturers of glazing repair kits all have different responsibilities and liabilities regarding automotive glazing and Safety Standard No. 205 under the Act.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business 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 Federal motor vehicle safety standard. (There is no prohibition against an individual modifying his or her own vehicle or equipment.) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not consider fixing a damaged windshield to constitute rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205 even if the windshield does not meet the requirements of the standard once repaired. This is because the agency considers the object or even which damaged the windshield in the first place to have rendered the windshield inoperative with respect to Standard No. 205. However, if the repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield that is installed in a vehicle renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop violates section 108(a)(2)(A). It does not matter whether the vehicle is new or used (i.e., has been sold for purposes other than resale). There is no violation if the repair business reasonably believes that the vehicle or item of equipment will not be used (other than for testing or similar purposes in the course of repair) during the time such device or element of design is rendered inoperative. Section 109 of the Act imposes a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). It is not likely that the process you describe would involve a rendering inoperative, but you should be aware of this section.

Sellers of repaired automotive glazing or vehicles equipped with repaired automotive glazing may violate section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Section 108(a)(1)(A) provides that: no person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard. . .

(Note that section 108(b)(1) provides that section 108(a)(1)(A) does not apply once the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is purchased in good faith for purposes other than resale. In other words, section 108(a)(1)(A) applies only to new vehicles or equipment, not to used vehicles or equipment.) Thus, if someone sells a new, but damaged, replacement windshield that does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205 once repaired, he or she is in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A), since he or she is selling an item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with all applicable safety standards. An automobile dealer who sells a new car whose windshield does not comply with Standard No. 205 also violates section 108(a)(1)(A). Again, section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation of section 108(a)(1)(A).

The responsibilities of manufacturers of glazing repair kits or systems under the Act are found in sections 151 et seq. of the Act. Such manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 also imposes a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment. It is not likely, however, that glazing repair kits would contain safety related defects. This section generally would apply to mechanical motor vehicle components.

Compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards will not automatically relieve a repair business or manufacturer of responsibility in a products liability suit. You will have to contact a private attorney for more information in this area, however.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have further questions.

SINCERELY,

NATIONAL DEALERS

May 21, 1981

Raymond Peck Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Peck:

I am writing on behalf of the 1,600 members of the National Glass Dealers Association, the nation's largest organization representing the automotive and architectural glass industry. For many years now, NGDA has addressed itself to the question of auto windshield glass repairs.

We have some new developments to tell you about, but first, a bit of background. It certainly comes as no surprise that minor breaks on laminated glass automobile windshields can be temporarily eliminated by displacing the air with as simple a substance as light oil. Used car salesmen have been known to attempt this for as long as there have been used car salesmen.

This repair concept made a great leap in technological sophistication when, several years ago, a company marketed a system for glass repair whereby a liquid plastic was deposited into minor windshield breaks by a vibrating type of machine. It was unsuccessful and eventually withdrawn from the market. Then came a "third generation" of repair that included elements common in both its predecessors. In 1975, this Association developed a report on all the known repair systems in existence then but, many of those firms have since disappeared.

The agonizing question still remains as to whether or not it is legal to repair damaged automobile windshields under various federal and state automobile safety laws and regulations.

Because glass dealers know the high standards set for windshields and because they know the integral part the windshield plays in the design and safety characteristics of an automobile, glass dealers have shied away from suggesting repair because it is not fully known how a repair affects the strength, integrity and vision of that original windshield and how that repaired glass might behave if called upon to support an auto's roof assembly in roll-over situation or worse.

Our association is also concerned at the fact that insurance people throughout the nation are waiving deductibles on comprehensive auto insurance and suggesting their insureds use repair instead of replacement. This could put that industry and ours in a most costly liable situation if an injury occured and the cause of the injury was alleged to be that the repaired glass did not maintain its strength, integrity and most important, we believe, undistorted vision.

One of our major concerns has been the advertising claims made by a major manufacturer of repair system. Their long-time claim has been that their product is, "Tested and meets the requirements of American National Standard Institute Safety Code (ANSI) Z26.1a-1969 (R-1973) for laminated glazing materials."

That is an invalid advertising claim that we feel has swayed the insurance industry into a false sense of security! In recent correspondence to ANSI, we pointed out that the independent testing laboratories' report on the repair system product noted the six different tests which were completed, but failed to note that the ANSI Code requires nine different tests -- leaving out three of the most important tests. Namely, an impact test, a deviation and distortion test and an abrasion resistance test. These three are surely vital if an effort is to be made to maintain the integrity of the windshield. We called on Mr. William H. Rockwell, Counsel for ANSI, and the Z26 Technical Committee of ANSI to make a determination as to whether or not these important advertising claims were, in fact, correct and applicable to the Z26 Code. We were quick to point out the authority and high regard an ANSI Code carries with it and we were certain ANSI would be interested in protecting its best interests.

We are pleased to report that both Mr. Rockwell and the Z26 Technical Committee have determined that the ANSI Code does not apply to repaired windshields -- only new windshields -- and ANSI moved quickly to request that the repair system cease reference to any ANSI Codes in its advertising as being an authority for use of its product. This is an important position taken by ANSI and we want to share this information with you. Glass dealers across the nation will be hearing that these advertising claims are invalid -- as determined by ANSI.

However, we now begin to see another advertising claim (as shown on the second page of the enclosed flyer) that a particular windshield repair system meets the ANSI codes". . . as observed by the United States Department of Transportation." Our agonizing question still remains! Can an installer of auto safety glass provide a glass repair service and not be held in violation of any ANSI or National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or Department of Transportation rules and/or regulations?

We are writing on behalf of our members who have a vital interest in expanding their market penetration, but only once assured that there would be no consequent liability for their actions. Therefore, we respectfully request information as to the extent of your departments observation of the NOVUS repair system, as indicated in the enclosed materials, which lead to your acceptance of such a system of glass repair.

If additional materials are needed, please feel free to contact our national headquarters office. We will appreciate your assistance in this matter and will look forward to your prompt reply.

Robert W. Stanley Executive Vice President

ENCLS.

cc: GEORGE FLEET -- NGDA PRES.

american national standards institute, inc.

April 10, 1981

Gerald E. Keinath President NOVUS Inc.

Dear Mr. Keinath:

Enclosed you will find a copy of my November 17, 1980 letter to NOVUS and your reply of December 16, 1980. Since that time we have been checking this question out and find two things:

1) ANSI Z26.1 covers only new windshields, not repaired glass. (See SAE letter of March 11, 1980 attached.)

2) We received a laboratory report analyzing the Patzig report you sent me. This is what they had to say:

"We have reviewed this report. Only six selected tests from the nine tests required by the Code were carried out. The following tests were not run: Test No. 9 Impact, Dart, 30 Feet, Test No.15 - Deviation and Distortion, and Test No. 18 - Abrasion Resistance. Most significant of these omissions were the optical deviation and distortion tests and the abrasion test. The Patzig Report states that 30 specimens illustrating repaired breaks of various size and shapes were submitted."

In view of this we are writing to ask you to refrain from using any reference to our Z26.1 standard in your advertising for repaired glass.

William H. Rockwell Resident Counsel

cc: PATRICIA COUHIG - SAE; ROBERT W. STANLEY

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

March 11, 1981

Robert W. Stanley National Glass Dealers Association

Dear Mr. Stanley:

The Technical Committee to ANSI Z26 has now had the opportunity to review in detail the matter of whether ANSI Z26.1-1977 addresses repaired windshields.

It is their opinion that the Code address new windshields, not repaired glass. This opinion is supported by the wording in the Code in paragraph 4.1, which states:

"Tests shall be applied to specimens only when in the condition as shipped by the manufacturer, except that any protective masking material shall be removed prior to making the tests."

We regret the delay in having this response made to you, however, we hope it does answer your inquiry.

Patricia Couhig for ANSI Z26 Technical Committee

cc: R. MORRISON; W. H. ROCKWELL

An exciting new business opportunity requiring a very modest investment. (Illegible Text)

(Graphics omitted)

Call and talk to a Novus Business Consultant who will explain the Novus METHODman(TM) II system and ongoing supports offered by the company, or write (include your phone number) to

NOVUS

International Headquarters NOVUS, Inc., 5301 Edina Industrial Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55435 (612) 831-2434

REPAIR STONE DAMAGED WINDSHIELDS (Illegible Text) (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-3.14

DATE: 09/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mid Bud Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30 SEP 4 1981

Mr. Fred S. Barrington Vice-President Engineering Mid Bus Inc. 710 East Wayne Street P.O. Box 1985 Lima, Ohio 45802

Dear Mr. Barrington:

This responds to your July 28; 1981, letter asking whether a portion of your school bus would be considered part of the sidewall or roof for purposes of complying with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Paragraph S5.3.1.1 defines the head impact zone in which the head protection requirements apply. The bus sidewall, windows and doors are exempted from complying with the requirements for head impact protection even if they fall within the head impact zone. The bus roof, on the other hand, must comply with the requirements if it falls within the zone. In the bus to which you refer in your letter, the bus wall and roof structure are not distinctly separated. You ask, therefore, where the roof stops and the sidewall begins.

The agency has stated by interpretation that the roof begins where the radius of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply. From the sketch that you enclosed with your letter, it appears that the roof would begin at the point marked "B". Assuming that your diagram is correct, the side of the bus below point "B" would be considered part of the bus sidewall and would not be required to comply with the head impact requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 28, 1981

Mr. Roger Tilton National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel, Room 5219 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Tilton:

Mid Bus Inc. builds a van type school bus under 10,000 lbs. GVWR. In this type unit there is a considerable amount of slant or tumble home in the sides. The enclosed sketch shows a typical side of our bus.

FMVSS 222 paragraph S 5.3.1.1 states that the head protection zones are spaces in front of each school bus passenger seat which are not occupied by bus side wall, window or door structure.....etc.

Refer to the enclosed sketch and note that Point "A" is where the side wall intersects the head protection zone. The wall extends upward and inward from that point. The shaded area on the sketch is that portion of the bus that falls in the head protection zone.

On September 28, 1977 NHTSA (NOA-30) made an interpreation for Ward Body Company that the side wall ended and the roof began at a point where the radios of curvature of the interior structure decreases sharply. Can we assume that this same point which is shown on the enclosed sketch as Point "B" is above the head impact zone and anything below Point "B" does not have to meet the head impact requirements?

Thank you for considering this matter.

Cordially,

Fred S. Barrington Vice-President Engineering

FSB:pas

Enclosure

ID: nht81-3.15

DATE: 09/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vector Cars

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 6, 1981, asking "for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only".

Our exemption procedures would not really be responsive to your situation. They are intended for noncomplying series production where immediate compliance would cause substantial economic hardship, where an innovative safety device or low-emission propulsion system is being developed, or where an equivalent overall level of safety is being provided. Most importantly, as you need immediate relief, the process from receipt of petition, through a public comment period, to final action takes about 4 months.

Under our importation regulation, 19 CFR 12.80(b)(i)(vii) a manufacturer is permitted to import noncomplying motor vehicles for purposes of test or experiment, and operate them on the public roads for a period of one year, upon submission of information concerning the purpose of the test, the anticipated amount of road time, and the intended disposition of the vehicle at the end of the test period. The purpose of this exception is to encourage innovation. Although no comparable exception is provided under our regulation for vehicles that are not imported, in balancing considerations of safety (noncompliance of one Vector windshield with Standard No. 205) with the policy of encouraging small businesses and innovation, we have decided that the technical violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act involved in this instance (introduction of a nonconforming vehicle into interstate commerce), is not one which the agency would pursue. You have informed us that the Vector requires immediate development of an emission control program, that the vehicle will not be sold, and that when a conforming windshield is received it will be installed. Under the circumstances of your case we have concluded that the same exception that would be available were the car imported, should be made available to a vehicle of domestic manufacture.

SINCERELY,

VECTOR CARS

August 6, 1981

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Confirming a telephone conversation with Miss Joan Griffin and a gentleman attorney of your office, on August 6, 1981, we wish to petition for a 12 month exemption from FMVSS 205 (windshield glass AS-1), exemption to apply to our (one) experimental prototype car only.

We are currently developing a vehicle known as the VECTOR, the production version will be aimed at the prestigious GT market, historically dominated by foreign cars.

We request this exemption for the following reasons explained in more detail in the attached letter to Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol, P.O. Box 898, Sacramento, CA 95804.

1. We have secured an experimental permit Executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emission controls for period of 12 months.

2. Our emission controls program spans a full year and it requires the vehicle to driven on the California highways for this period.

3. Lead time to obtain a legal AS-1 glass windshield to fit our vehicle is approximately 6 months. This span subtracts from our 12 month CARB permit and leaves insufficient time to complete our program

(Graphics omitted) and obtain Emission Certificate.

4. Windshield production tooling is expensive and dependent on final production configuration. This configuration should "firm up" within the next 6 months. Tooling expenditure prior the this point would be in jeopardy of being wasted. In any case, as soon as a legal AS-1 glass can be obtained for the prototype it will be immediately installed and the plastic windshield will no longer be used.

5. The success of the VECTOR CARS program is considerably influenced by our investor who requires the vehicle to be registered by the State of California.

6. The limited use of the car negates, in a practical sense, the basic restriction to plastic as a windshield material, (the optical degeneration due to abrasion), since the wipers will seldom, if ever, be used.

7. The car will be driven by professional drivers and no safety hazards are planned in our testing program.

8. The car is a prototype and will not be sold.

In our conversation with Capt. King of the California Highway Patrol on August 6, 1981, (916-445-1865) he indicated that California would honor the NHTSA exemption. A letter from your office indicating the granting of the exemption would allow us to clear the (Illegible Word) obstacle with the California Highway Patrol in obtaining a California license.

If there is any thing more needed from us to expidite the granting of this petition, please do not hesitate to call me.

Jerry Wiegert President

July 30, 1981

Capt. C. E. King Commercial and Technical Section California Highway Patrol

Dear Capt. King:

We wish to request an experimental permit allowing the use of a polycarbonate plastic windshield in our prototype vehicle, the VECTOR W2 TWIN-TURBO.

We are currently involved in the development of an experimental prototype vehicle known as the VECTOR. This is to become a limited production sports car aimed at the prestigious GT market segment which has too long been dominated by foreign cars.

The newly completed prototype is a result of 8 years of research and it has already received a tremendous amount of publicity through both television and automotive journals internationally. Previously, we have trailered the car to track testing sights and to shows. However, we have come to the point in time where we need to have the car registered for use on California highways. This is necessary for several reasons: One is that we have already established an emissions testing program that requires operation funding for our program that requires operation of the vehicle on the highway. Secondly, any further funding for our program hinges on our investor's request to register the car with the State of California.

Our present problem is that the car meets all Federal and State requirements except for one-the plastic windshield. We of course will use an AS-1 glass windshield in our production cars, but, as you may know, glass tooling demands an extremely long tooling time and requires a large capital investment. We cannot secure the funds to pay for the tooling without first registering the car, and we cannot delay the emissions testing program.

We have already secured an experimental permit from the California Air Resources Board, executive order C-170, July 1981, to allow development of our emissions controls for a period of 12 months.

Our glass manufacturer has indicated a lead time of 6 months. Even if we had the funds now for the glass tooling, there would not be enough time to conduct our emissions work. If we have to wait until the glass windshield is installed, approximately 6 months from now.

As we understand it, from the technical viewpoint, the polycarbonate windshield (which is approved for aircraft use), is adequate for all safety requirements except on, the degradation of optical qualities caused by windshield wipers and other abrasions.

In our case the car will see limited street usage and will only be driven by a few qualified professional drivers. It will not be operated in inclement weather, negating the use of the windshield wipers which are installed on the car. Plus, the screen has a special coating to eliminate abrasions.

Since this vehicle is a prototype only and will not be sold, we would like to request your permission to obtain a temporary exemption (12 months) based on the responsibility of engineering and safety design done thus far, the VECTOR W2 is the safest production sports car ever designed for the street.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me so that we can expedite this matter as soon as possible.

Jerry Wiegert President

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

August 10, 1981

File No.: 62.A3020.A4889

Jerry Wiegert Vehicle Design Force Vector Cars Division

Dear Mr. Wiegert:

We cannot issue the experimental permit requested in your letter of July 30, 1981, for the temporary use of a plastic windshield in your prototype vehicle. Experimental permits issued pursuant to Vehicle Code 26106 are for the purpose of gathering data to support changes to statute or regulations. Issuing a permit for the purpose you requested would not be consistent with the intent of law.

Standards adopted by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) require glass type glazing complying with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) 205 in windshields and other windows of all motor vehicles. You may wish to petition NHTSA for an exemption from FMVSS 205. Petitions should be directed to the U. S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Office of Standards Enforcement, Washington, D.C. 20590.

Although we would oppose such an exemption on the basis of the safety issue involved, we would have no choice but to allow the vehicle to operate in California once the exemption is granted.

C. E. KING, Captain Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section