ID: nht76-5.15

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your September 8, 1976, letter requesting information concerning the Federal regulations that would be applicable to safety glazing for use in "slow moving" vehicles. Please excuse our delay in answering your questions. Apparently, your earlier letter of February 5, 1976, was misplaced.

Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in most motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. A glazing manufacturer must certify any glazing that is to be used in a motor vehicle (other than a trailer) as being in compliance with Standard No. 205. "Motor vehicle" is defined in @ 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. I am enclosing a copy of the agency's opinion of what vehicles qualify as "motor vehicles" under the definition. Glazing material that is to be used in a vehicle that does not qualify as a "motor vehicle" does not have to meet the performance requirements of Standard No. 205.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1976

Triplex Safety Glass Co Ltd

Robert L. Carter -- Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Mr. Carter,

On 5th February 1976 I wrote to the Department of Transportation requesting information on possible regulations in the U.S.A. governing the safety glazing to be fitted in slow moving vehicles. To date I have not received a reply. It may be that the letter was lost in the post and I, therefore, enclose a copy.

I realise, of course, that this query is probably nothing to do with your department, but I would be grateful if you could either forward it to the correct authority or alternatively let us have the address of this authority in order that we can write to them ourselves.

Yours sincerely,

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

FEBRUARY 5, 1976

The Administrator -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Dear Sir,

SLOW MOVING VEHICLES

Can you please let us know what regulations, if any, govern the type of safety glazing which must be fitted in slow moving vehicles (i.e. vehicles with a maximum speed of 20-25 km/h) in the U.S.A. These vehicles are usually agricultural or forestry vehicles, etc. which might go on a public road for short periods.

Our understanding of U.S. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act 1966 and F.M.V.S.S. 205 are that neither covers such vehicles. The former describes a motor vehicle as "any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads and highways" and the latter applies only to passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motor cycles, slide-in campers and pick up covers.

If the above query does not come within your jurisdiction, we would be grateful if you would forward our letter to the correct authority.

Yours faithfully, TRIPLEX SAFETY GLASS COMPANY LIMITED;

MISS VALERIE HOOD -- Standards Department

ID: nht76-5.16

DATE: 05/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. A. Olsen, Ph.D.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1976, question whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards would apply to the replacement of seat belt webbing in seat belt assemblies to refurbish deteriorated portions of the webbing.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to regulate the manufacture, but not the repair, of motor vehicle equipment such as seat belt assemblies. The NHTSA has issued a standard that applies to the manufacture and sale of seat belt assemblies (Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209)). In enforcement of this standard, the agency must, therefore, distinguish between what is "repair" and what is "manufacture" of a seat belt assembly.

You intend to accept existing seat belt assemblies from vehicle owners and to replace the webbing portions, reusing the hardware that is recovered from the existing assembly. From this description, the agency considers that the operation would constitute the manufacture of a seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of Standard No. 209. The majority of the assembled product would be new material, and the manufacturing operations involved in cutting and sewing constitute significant factors in the construction of the finished product.

SINCERELY,

RICHARD A. OLSEN, Ph.D. Engineering Psychologist

Licensed Psychologist: Pa. #PS0235 Member: APA, PPA, HFS, IEEE, SAE

March 26, 1976

Robert L. Carter Associate Administrator for Motor Vehicle Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. U.S. Department of Transportation

We have been considering establishing a mail-order firm specializing in replacement of the webbing of seat belt assemblies. As you may know, belt replacements through automobile dealers may cost $ 15-20 per assembly, while the webbing, which is the only component that deteriorates, could be supplied for about $ 1-2. By reuse of the hardware and quick turnaround times, stocking only the most common assemblies and allowing trade-ins, this service could expand as the demand increases and keep the cost low.

We would like an opinion from NHTSA on the standards which might be involved in such a service. Specifically, if webbing, assembly, and sewing are comparable to original equipment, would any testing for final assembly strength be required? We assume that reasonable workmanship would be sufficient if standard components and procedures are used. Any extensive testing or certification requirements would preclude initiation of this service firm since very small initial volumes would be anticipated, and cost must be kept low to cover labor, postage, and supplies.

We feel that the public is beginning to appreciate the value of seat belts, partly as a result of the interlock which demonstrated that the belts themselves "weren't so bad after all." Now there needs to be a way to replace frayed belts at a price that is not a strong deterrent.

Richard A. Olsen

ID: nht76-5.17

DATE: 11/10/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: E. D. Etnyre & Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in belated response to your letters of June 22, 1976, concerning the availability of NHTSA interpretation letters and the assignment by vehicle manufacturers of Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

Letters written by this agency that interpret the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or accompanying regulations are regularly compiled by standard or regulation number and placed in a public file (the "redbooks") in the Docket Section at Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. Copies of these letters are distributed informally by various trade associations, as you have noted. However, there is currently no subscription service available directly from the NHTSA. I recommend that you periodically (bimonthly, perhaps) telephone the Docket Section (202 426-2768) to find out whether entries have recently been made in the Redbooks under the standards and regulations that are of particular concern to you.

You have also asked several questions concerning the relationship between an axle's Gross Axle Weight Pating (GAWR) and the overloading of that axle when the vehicle is in use. GAWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as

the value specified by the vehicle manufacturer as the load-carrying capacity of a single axle system, as measured at the tire-ground interfaces.

It is thus a rating assigned by the manufacturer at the time of manufacture. A vehicle whose axle weight ratings are likely to be exceeded under the manufacturer's intended or reasonably forseeable conditions of usage would probably be considered to contain a safety-related defect. Such a vehicle would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1392 et seq.).

We cannot prescribe specific steps that a vehicle manufacturer must take to ensure that a GAWR would not be found so low that it would be a safety-related defect. For example, if a warning in the owner's manual against loading in a certain manner is likely to be ignored, then such a warning would not, by itself, be sufficient. The NHTSA expects the vehicle manufacturer to take reasonable steps, short of retraining from production, to minimize the likelihood of vehicle misuse through overloading.

SINCERELY,

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA This matter refers to Part 567 "Certification" and Part 568 "Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages" of 49CFR.

Many of the interpretations and comments dealing with "rated loads" refer to the circumstance of exceeding the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). However, the certification label also requires that the Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) also be noted. We have not as yet seen any question or interpretation dealing with the matter of overload on an axle. Our questions then are as follows.

1. Assume a tank type motor vehicle; which when loaded full to its rated cargo load; expressed as a volume of a specific commodity. (i.e., water); does not exceed the GVWR rating but the load is distributed such that a GAWR is exceeded. Is this a violation of the regulations?

2. Assume the same type vehicle loaded with a material whose specific weight varies over a limited range but does have an average acceptable value for general use (i.e. asphalt). If a GAWR is exceeded is this a violation of the regulations?

3. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 2, constructed of compartments for variable commodities and designed for a specific loading arrangement. If the loading arrangement is not followed by the user and the GAWR is exceeded but not the GVWR, is the manufacturer liable?

4. Assume a vehicle as in paragraph 1, which is loaded full by the user with a material heavier than specified and designed for by the manufacturer and both the GVWR and GAWR are exceeded, is the manufacturer liable?

5. If a volumetric load of specific weight is considered by the manufacturer in rating the vehicle, what steps are necessary to protect the manufacturer from alleged violations of rating if other commodities are carried?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

E.D. ETNYRE & CO.

June 22, 1976

U.S. Department of Transportation Legal Counsel - NHTSA

We have become aware of the process whereby interpretation to paragraphs of Parts of 49CFR (particularly Parts 567, 568 and 571) are distributed on an informal basis through various trade associations. We further note that they apparently are carried in your files under the designation of "N40-30".

Since our activities are not completely served by any one particular association and we are not prepared to join a multitude of associations, is there a compilation of interpretations which are available from NHTSA on a regular or subscription basis? If there is such a service we would appreciate hearing about it. If not, how do we assure ourselves that interpretations which are being made on matters of common concern are made available to us so that we can comply with these interpretations?

Jackson Decker Chief Product Engineer

ID: nht74-2.27

DATE: 06/12/74

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

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of May 29, 1974, concerning paragraph S5.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air brake systems.

When a full trailer is tested for compliance with S5.3.2, the wheels on the steerable axle(s) cannot lock up at speeds above 10 mph except for controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

May 29, 1974

Larry Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: FMVSS-121 - Request for Interpretation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

A number of our members are currently involved in the redesign of braking systems in order to comply with the regulations specified by FMVSS.121. In this regard, we would appreciate your advice on the following:

Section S5.3.2 specifies antiwheel lockup control on all wheels except "lockup of wheels on non-steerable axles other than the two rearmost non-liftable, non-steerable axles on a trailer with more than two non-steerable axles."

Does this imply that all steerable axles must have antilock control?

Sincerely yours,

Burt Weller -- Engineering Manager

ID: nht74-2.28

DATE: 01/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dow Chemical Europe, S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1974, concerning motor vehicle brake fluid certification.

The answer to your first two questions is no. The answer to your third question is also no, since the report of the independent testing laboratory covers only the fluid actually tested and bears no necessary relationship to a manufacturer's quality control program and the necessity to assure continuing compliance with Standard No. 116.

The answer to the fourth question is yes - the manufacturer must satisfy himself of continuing compliance and, when necessary, provide data to the NHTSA in substantiation of his certification.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

DOW CHEMICAL EUROPE S.A.

The Director -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Ref: MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID CERTIFICATION

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you for clarification on a point which is, alas, still causing some confusion here in Europe.

As you can see from the attachment, I wrote to the SAE in 1969 and my letter to them was forwarded to Dr. Robert Brenner for the DOT position. Unfortunately I never received a reply.

May I therefore repeat my enquiry:

1. Does the DOT/NHTSA issue certificates of compliance of brake fluid with the current Federal Regulations (FMVSS116, March 1972)?

assuming not:

2. Does the DOT/NHTSA officially recognise certain laboratories as being capable of testing to the requirements of the current Federal Regulations?

assuming not:

3. Is the DOT/NHTSA satisfied when the manufacturer of brake fluid obtains a test certificate from an independent testing laboratory, showing compliance of its product with current Federal Regulations?

assuming not:

4. Does the DOT/NHTSA simply place the onus on the manufacturer to satisfy himself and, when necessary, to prove that his product complies with current Federal regulations?

Furthermore, I should appreciate guidance on the following:

Previous to the issuance of Federal Regulations, most of the individual States had their own regulations pertaining to brake fluid. After the issuance of Federal Regulations, can it be assumed that no State Authority may take action against a supplier/manufacturer/trader of brake fluid not complying with that particular State's regulations, but complying fully with the Federal regulations?

In other words, may a State legally enforce requirements which are different, more stringent etc. than the Federal regulations?

I should like to thank you in advance for your trouble and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Technical Service & Development

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

December 23, 1969

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Development and Services, Dow Chemical Europe S.A.

Dear Mr. Abbott:

This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1969 regarding brake fluid certification.

As noted in your letter, the practice in the United States is that laboratories certify to the manufacturers that their fluids meet either SAE or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There is no control over the laboratories by SAE or the Federal Government. The competence of the laboratories is determined by the industry and those who use the laboratories specifically.

The policy which has been and will continue to be followed by SAE is to produce the best standards available and not to be involved in the deterimation of compliance to these standards. Since all SAE standards are for voluntary use by both industry and government, it would not be practical for us to do otherwise.

We cannot speak for the Department of Transportation which to the best of my knowledge does not at the present time have any plans to determine the adequacy of independent laboratories. I am referring your letter to Dr. Robert Brenner, Deputy Director, National Highway Safety Bureau (DOT) so that he can provide you with an official position regarding the Federal Government in this matter.

If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

Very truly yours,

Henry Martin -- Research Manager

cc: Robert Brenner

DOW CHEMICAL EUROPE S.A.

Society of Automotive Engineers

Attn. Hank Martin, permanent secretary, Brake Fluid Committ

Dear Mr. Martin,

As you are probably aware from certain questions raised at recent SAE Brake Fluid Committee meetings by personnel from Dow Chemical Company, Midland, we in Europe are at present experiencing some difficulty in establishing, for a large potential customer with a significant export business to the United States, the exact legal situation and also procedure required for a brake fluid to be considered legal within the United States.

At present, as I understand the situation and please correct me if I am wrong, a brake fluid is legal in the United States if it complies with the Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 116 which, in turn, states that fluids complying with SAE J 7OR1, R3 (and presumably J 1703 and J 1703a) automatically comply with Regulation 116.

The big question now is: who is to determine whether a brake fluid complies with SAE specifications. In the United States, the practice is, I am informed, for the manufacturer to submit the fluid in question to a so-called independent testing institute for examination against SAE specifications. Examples of such institutes would be Foster O. Snell, Electrical Testing, South-Western Research etc. and they would, as a disinterested party between manufacturer and buyer, issue a notarised certificate stating whether the fluid did or did not fulfil SAE specifications.

The point recently raised by our customer, however, was that does the Department of Transportation or the SAE, whose specification constitutes Standard 116, have any control or check on these independent laboratories, also does any official D.O.T. or SAE approval exist which would then certify these laboratories as being approved testing institutes capable of testing brake fluids completely against the legal mimimum requirements.

Consequently, I am asking you to kindly state for me the official SAE standpoint in this matter.

My since thanks in advance for your trouble.

Yours faithfully,

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Development and Service

ID: nht74-2.29

DATE: 05/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Robert E. Langdon III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1974, asking whether retreaded tires are required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 to have either a ribbed tread pattern or treadwear indicators.

Standard No. 117 does not have requirements for tread pattern design, and thus retreaded tires need not have a ribbed tread design. Each retreaded tire must, however, in accordance with S5.1.1(b) of Standard No. 117, incorporate a treadwear indicator that will provide a visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch.

YOURS TRULY,

April 12, 1974

Office of the Chief Counsel -- Attn: Lawrence Schneider, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

I have talked with Mr. Zemaitas of the San Francisco office of the N.H.T.S.A. several times about the D.O.T. standards for retreaded pneumatic tires. He was able, after calling the enforcement section of N.H.T.S.A. in Washington, to answer the question I had. When I asked if he could send the information to me in writing, he told me that I would have to write to the legal section in Washington in order to receive a written reply, and he was kind enough to give me your address.

I am a member of the Code Committee of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs. Our Council sanctions slaloms, which are non-racing time and maneuverability events for automobiles. These slaloms are normally held on privately owned parking lots. Many of the cars are towed or trailered to the events since, under the provisions of the California Motor Vehicle Code, they may not legally be driven on streets or highways.

My questions stems from the fact that our slalom code has a rule in reference to tires which states, "Tires must be listed . . . in the manufacturer's printed catalog, and/or have a D.O.T. marking." This rule applies to retreaded tires as well as to new tires.

We have dealt with several retreaders that have been retreading D.O.T. marked carcasses with rubber of a low Shore hardness for increased traction. These tires have met the D.O.T. standards and have always had a tread groove pattern. Consequently the retreaders have marked them with their D.O.T. marks in addition to the original manufacturer's D.O.T. mark already on the carcass. The reason our rule is written specifying a D.O.T. mark is that the safety and strength of tires used in our sport is very important to us. We feel that the retreaders will continue to supply us with high quality, safe tires if we require them to meet the D.O.T. standards for retreaded tires.

My question to Mr. Zemaitas which he referred to the enforcement section (Illegible Words) retreaded tire which meets the standards for retreaded pneumatic tires (Code of Federal REgulations, Title 49, Chapter V, Paragraph 571.117) be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark if (1) there is no groove or rib pattern in the tread, and (2) there are wear indicators in the tread.

The enforcement section indicated to Mr. Zemaitas that this can be done, as there is no requirement for a tread groove or rib pattern, but only for tread wear indicators.

What I would like from you is written verification that, as long as a retreaded tire has tread wear indicators, it does not need to have a tread groove or tread rib pattern in order to be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark. This letter will be shown to other members of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs to verify to them that such a retreaded tire complies with D.O.T. standards and therefore can be legally marked with a D.O.T. mark.

I would appreciate a reply from you as soon as possible. If you have any questions, I am normally available from 10 am. to 3 pm. (PST) at the telephone number shown above.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Langdon III

ID: nht74-2.3

DATE: 10/07/74

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

TO: Southern Railway System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 24, 1974, question whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, would apply to trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, although the painting of the trailers and their delivery to Southern had not been completed.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

(a) No person shall --

(1) manufacture for sale, sell . . . any motor vehicle . . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .

We consider a vehicle to be "manufactured" for purposes of the Act where the vehicle has been completed in all respects except for the addition of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations such as painting undertaken at a later date. A discussion of this point appears in the preamble to a recent Standard No. 121 rulemaking action (39 FR 17564, May 17, 1974). As for possession of the trailers by Southern, delivery of the vehicle is not considered a element of the manufacturing process.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Southern Railway System

Law Department

September 24, 1974

T. W. Herlihy -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

Southern Railway Company is in the process of taking delivery on 1,000 new trailers from the Fruehauf Corporation. These units are being built in Ft. Madison, Iowa and are being shipped over the road to St. Louis, Missouri, where Kux Manufacturing Company is stenciling them. They are then delivered to Southern at our East St. Louis, Illinois Intermodal Facility.

There is no question that Fruehauf will complete the manufacture of these units by January 1, 1975. On the other hand, there is serious doubt that Kux will complete the stenciling by that date and make delivery of all 1,000 units to us. MVSS 121 (the new "brake law") applies to units manufactured after January 1, 1975. Is our understanding correct that as long as the trailers in question are manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, they will not be required to be fitted with the new brake system, even though some of them may actually be delivered after January 1, 1975?

I would appreciate your advice, confirming the foregoing understanding of the law.

With many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

William P. Stallsmith, -- Senior General Attorney

cc: C. E. Webb -- Assistant Vice President-Engineering & Researh, Southern Railway Company

ID: nht74-2.30

DATE: 05/02/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maxi-Cab Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1974, asking which Federal requirements apply to the Maxi-Cab, pictures of which you enclose. You describe the Maxi-Cab as a fiberglass shell that fits in the back of compact pickups, and indicate that it has been designed to be used to transport children.

Based on the pictures you have furnished, we have concluded that the Maxi-Cab is a "pickup cover", which is defined in S4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (49 CFR 571.205), as "a camper having a roof and sides but without a floor, designed to be mounted on and removable from the cargo area of a truck by the user."

Since you describe the Maxi-Cab as designed to transport persons, the glazing material used in its construction must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. No other Federal requirements administered by this agency apply to it.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

March 18, 1974

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Sir:

Several months ago we first put a product on the market called the Maxi-Cab. The Maxi-Cab has two parts: The first part is a fibreglass shell that fits on the back of compact pickups. After the first installation the shell can be taken off or put on again in about five minutes. The rear window of the truck cab is removed and there is a waterproof boot between the cab and the shell. The second part is a utility box which slides in under the front part of the shell. This box is then locked in both by sliding bolts and by a clete in the tonneau which holds it in place when the tonneau cover is shut. There are two shelves on the sides and cushions are placed on the shelves either for storage for gear, or if the driver chooses, as seats for children.

We put this product out after checking first with the California State Department of Motor Vehicles who informed us that in their opinion the unit did not come under any existing regulations since it was completely removable.

We then talked also with the California Highway Patrol which in turn referred us to the NHTSA.

I have had a series of phone conversations with a Mr. Buckley in NHTSA and after discussions with legal people in your office he informed us that pending a ruling from your office it was his opinion that with the exception of certain glazing standards (with which we already comply) there were no federal regulations governing this product.

Both for our own peace of mind, and to answer questions from our dealers, we would like to receive some documentation of this opinion. Mr. Buckley indicated that the appropriate method for receiving a written opinion on this matter was to send a written request to your Office requesting a written opinion on this matter.

I am enclosing two photographs which will give you some idea of the appearance and mechanisms involved. I hope they will be sufficient.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

James L. Creighton -- MAXI-CAB ENTERPRISES

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-2.31

DATE: 02/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kar-Kraft, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of December 6, 1973, in response to your phone conversation with Mike Peskoe on February 25, 1974. You indicated then that our reply of February 6, 1974, failed to define "lowest seating position" as that term is used with respect to motorcycles in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2).

We interpret the phrase "lowest seating position" to mean the lowest point on the uncompressed seating surface of the motorcycle operator's seat.

I regret that our earlier letter omitted this information.

ID: nht74-2.32

DATE: 02/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kar-Kraft, Inc.

COPYEE: PESKOE; COMPTON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which you ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the "lowest seating position" for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to "lowest seating surface" in proposed "Fields of Direct View" (Docket No. 70-7; Notice 2; 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.

The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (38 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase "lowest seating position" to be synonymous with "lowest seating surface" with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 105 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 6, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of the Chief Council, N. H. T. S. A.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

In a recent conversation with your Mr. Peskoe, I asked a question relative to FMVSS 205 which Mr. Peskoe advised would best be asked in written form to which your office would make a prompt reply.

Accordingly, my question is this:

In FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials, at S5.1.2.1 "Safety plastic materials . . . may be used in a motor vehicle only in the following specific location at levels not requisite for driving visibility.

(b) Motorcycle windscreens below the intersection of a horizontal plane 15 inches vertically above the lowest seating position."

Additionally, in Docket 70-7, Notice 2, Paragraph S10.1 it says: "There shall be no obstructions forward of the forwardmost point of the driver's seat that are above a horizontal plane 18 inches above the lowest seating surface of the driver's seat . . ."

Specifically, what is the definition of the "lowest seating position" in FMVSS 205 and lowest seating surface in Docket 70-7 and what accounts for the difference in the 15 inch and 18 inch dimensions?

We look forward to your prompt reply in this matter.

Sincerely,

KAR-KRAFT, INC.;

L. A. Volberding -- Administrative Manager