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: nht87-1.86

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert R. Shapro -- Vice President, Transportation Specialist, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert R. Shapro Vice President Transportation Specialist, Inc. 512 Cave Road Nashville, TN 37210

Dear Mr. Shapro:

This letter responds to your request for "the fact sheet concerning certification as required" by 49 CFR Parts 567 and 568. You describe your company as a "multistage manufacturer," and ask how your company can become certified "to manufacture or alter v ehicles in accordance with the code of Federal regulation." I regret the delay in responding to your request.

First, please be aware that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. The NHTSA does not approve vehicles or equipment , nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a certification process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable sta ndards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

As you request, I enclose a copy of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or more Stages. Also, for your information, I enclose an information sheet that may be of interest to you if you are new to motor vehicle and m otor vehicle equipment manufacture.

Please note that there is no requirement that a company be "certified" before it can manufacture or alter vehicles. 49 CFR Part 566 does require that if a company begins to manufacture motor vehicles subject to any of the Federal safety standards, it mus t submit information identifying itself and its products to NHTSA not later than 30 days after it begins manufacture.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Washington, DC 20590

December 23, 1986

Our company is a multistage manufacturer. We would like the fact sheet concerning certification as required in CFR 49 567-568. "Vendor must be certified by the NHTSA to manufacture or alter vehicles in accordance with code of Federal regulation". How do we become certified?

Please send this information to:

ROBERT R. SHAPRO Vice President Transportation Specialist, Inc. 512 Cave Road Nashville, TN 37210

Thank You

Robert Sharpo

ID: nht87-2.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Roberto Troilo

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Roberto Troilo SIV 66050 San Salvo ITALY Telex 60028

Dear Mr. Troilo:

This responds to your phone conversation with Mr. Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning how regulations adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and other Federal agencies affect glazing material used in motor vehicles. Specifically, you asked if a double-zoned tempered windscreen can be used in an off-road agricultural tractor, which has a top speed of 40 kilometers per hour. Based on the information you have provided us, it does not appear that our safety standards would apply at a ll to your vehicles, as explained below.

The motor vehicle safety standards apply only to vehicles that are "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act(15 U.S.C. 1391). Section 102(3) of this Act defines a "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

The agency has interpreted this language to exclude from the definition of motor vehicle any vehicle which is sold primarily for off-road use, even though it may use public roads incidentally to travel from one site to another. In addition, some vehicles are excepted from this classification despite their use on the highway. This includes vehicles which have a low maximum speed capability and whose unusual configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow. Your vehicle appears to fit into these exe mpted categories, and from the information you have provided, it would appear that our safety standards do not apply to your vehicle.

For your further information, we also note that the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has regulations which may affect your vehicle. OSHA's standards for agriculture are contained in 29 CFR Part 1928. (CFR st ands for the Code of Federal Regulations, the annual publication of all Federal regulations of current applicability and legal effect.) While there is no provision concerning glazing requirements for agricultural vehicles, there are other requirements su ch as roll-over protective structures. We are forwarding a copy of OSHA's standards to you by mail.

I hope this information is useful. Please contact us again if you need further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.98

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/21/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Diane K. Steed; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bill Nelson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The Honorable Bill Nelson U.S. House of Representative 2404 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0912

Dear Mr. Nelson:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Glenn Gourley, who questions the effectiveness of safety belts and opposes the safety belt use law enacted by the State of Florida.

During the past decade, 470,000 persons have died on American highways. Each year, an estimated 300,000 are injured seriously enough to require hospital treatment. These traffic deaths and injuries have resulted in an annual cost to society of approximat ely 57 billion dollars resulting from such costs as emergency medical services, long-term medical care and rehabilitation, worker's compensation, welfare payments, and lost tax revenue.

Numerous analyses have shown that safety belts reduce fatalities by 40-50 percent and reduce serious injuries by 45-55 percent. I have enclosed copies of a safety belt fact sheet and several pamphlets we have published explaining how and why safety belts are so effective. Because of the extensive body of evidence about the effectiveness of safety belts, the United States Supreme Court has said, "We start with the accepted ground that, if used, seatbelts unquestionably would save many thousands of lives and would prevent tens of thousands of crippling injuries.

In an effort to protect their citizens by substantially reducing vehicle-related deaths and injuries, and to reduce the financial burden on their taxpayers, 29 State and the District of Columbia have enacted safety belt use laws. I have also enclosed an occupant protection fact sheet. This sheet reports that among front seat occupants, safety belts saved about 2,200 lives in 1985, and 1750 of those lives were saved in States that have safety belt laws. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Diane K. Steed

Enclosures

Mr. Glenn Gourley 25434 Antler Street Christmas, Florida 32709

Dear Mr. Gourley:

Thank you for your letter opposing a mandatory seatbelt law. I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of your letter to the Department of Transportation, so that they may review and respond to your concerns. I will contact you again when I receive a reply. I appreciate your taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Sincerely,

BN:mr

ID: nht76-1.45

DATE: 06/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; T. W. Herlihy for S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: NTDRA Dealer News

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing to point out an error in an article that appeared in the May 24-31, 1976, issue of NTDRA Dealer News (Vol. XXXIX, No. 15). The article summarized a recent Federal Register notice (41 FR 18659; May 6, 1976; Docket No. 71-19; Notice 4) that delayed certain effective dates of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The error appears in the paragraph of the article that reads:

Section 5.1.1 says that rims used must be those designated by the tire manufacturer. The effective date has been changed from March 1, 1977 to September 1, 1979.

One requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims that have been designated by the manufacturer of the vehicle's tires as suitable for use with those tires. The effective date of this requirement was originally established as September 1, 1976, and was not delayed by Notice 4. Another requirement of S5.1.1 is that a vehicle be equipped with rims that comply with the standard, i.e., with rims that are marked according to S5.2, Rim Marking. Only the effective date of this vehicle requirement was changed from March 1, 1977, to September 1, 1979.

A clarification of these effective dates in a forthcoming issue of NTDRA Dealer News would be much appreciated.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Federal Register Lists Changes In Standard #120

WASHINGTON, D C -- The Department of Transportation has announced several changes in Standard #120. The Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The changes are

Section 5.1.1 says that rims used must be those designated by the (Illegible Word) manufacturer. The effective date has been changed from March 1, 1977 to September 1, 1979.

Section 5.2 concerned with rim markings will be made effective August 1, 1977 rather than August 1, 1976

Section 5.3 concerning the certification label will apply to vehicles made on or after September 1, 1977 rather than 1976 When the Standard was issued on January 23, 1976, DOT told passenger car manufacturers that descriptive labels placed on new cars must make reference to the weight to be carried and to specify the tire size to be used and at what air pressure. The notice to new car makers had an effective date of September 1, 1976. It has been changed to September 1, 1977.

ID: nht76-2.24

DATE: 04/12/76

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

TO: H. A. Heffron, Esq.

COPYEE: JOHN J. GIESGUTH

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Re: Yankee Metal Products Corporation

Dear Mr. Heffron:

This is in reply to the petition of March 16, 1976, by your client Yankee Metal Products Corporation ("Yankee" herein) for an interpretation of 49 CFR 571.108, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Yankee seeks an interpretation "that the use of strobe type signal warning lamps on school buses is permissible provided that such lamps meet the specific performance requirements in S4.1.4 which incorporates SAE Standard J887."

Yankee has submitted a test report by Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc. indicating conformance to SAE Standard J887 including its photometric requirements. Yankee has also submitted an opinion by a professional engineer that "the Yankee strobe lights tested by ETL meet the photometric requirements of SAE J887."

As you know, this agency does not "approve" specific lighting devices prior to their introduction into interstate commerce, and all that is legally required is that the manufacturer certify that its product meets all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The ETL report and professional opinion indicate that the design of the Yankee system complies with SAE J887, and thus they provide a basis upon which Yankee could certify that its system meets Standard No. 108. Therefore the use of its strobe type signal warning lamps appears to be permissible under Standard No. 108.

This means that the interpretation provided Mr. John J. Giesguth on December 9, 1975, does not apply to any strobe light system where an equivalency of conforming performance can be demonstrated, as Yankee appears to have done.

Sincerely,

LAW OFFICES HOWARD A. HEFFRON

202-872-0417

March 16, 1976

Frank Berndt, Esquire -- Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Yankee Metal Products Corporation

Dear Mr. Berndt: I represent Yankee Metal Products Corporation of Norwalk, Connecticut in connection with the request for an interpretation of MVSS 108 submitted to your office today. Please communicate directly with me regarding this matter.

I would think that an early meeting between Yankee and NHTSA representatives to discuss the technical points presented and any related questions would be useful and help to expedite consideration of the matter and request that at an early date a conference for this purpose be scheduled.

Very truly yours,

Howard A. Heffron

ID: nht76-2.27

DATE: 03/12/76

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

TO: CaL Light Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your latestletter, dated February 17, 1976, you asked "Does the Federal motor vehicle safety standards allow the use of one half of an automobile headlight system on a motorcycle?"

There is no Federal prohibition against an owner modifying his motorcycle to use any lighting configuration, though there may be State or municipal restrictions. The answer where a manufacturer is involved, however, depends upon the type of automobile headlamp system used. Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires a motorcycle to be equipped with a headlamp system conforming to SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. Two options allowed are use of a single 7 inch sealed beam unit, or of one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam unit, provided these headlamps meet the requirements of SAE J579a, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles, August 1965. Thus, "one half" of a two-headlamp, or of a four-lamp circular lens passenger car headlighting system could be used on a motorcycle. But use of a system comprised of one Type 1A plus Type 2A (rectangular lens), is not currently permitted under Standard No. 108.

Since there is an equivalence of performance between rectangular and circular lens headlamps systems, if you wish to merchandise a two-lamp (Type 1A plus Type 2A) rectangular system for use on motorcycles, you may wish to submit an additional petition for an amendment of Standard No. 108.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

CAL LIGHT CO.

February 17, 1976

RICHARD B. DYSON -- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Dyson,

In reply to your letter of February 12, 1976, first of all, we did not at that time, December 10, 1975, petition the NHTSA for an ammendment. The petition for ammendment was filed on January 27, 1976 by our letter of January 14, 1976.

I have recieved much stationary from your office, however, little of it pertains to the basic context of my letters. I shall request basically the same as I have in my previous letters, although I shall use a different format. I would like your office to give me a yes or no answer on the following question, Does the Federal motor vehicle saftey standards allow the use of one half of an automobile headlight system on a motorcycle?.

I shall be awaiting your prompt reply.

Truly,

Lawrence MacEachern

ID: nht76-2.44

DATE: 02/26/76

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

TO: H. A. Heffron, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1976, asking for a confirmation of your understanding that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not apply to lighting equipment intended as replacement equipment on motor vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1972.

You are correct in your interpretation. The effective date of Standard No. 108 in its current form is January 1, 1972. Therefore, the term "any vehicle to which this standard applies" contained in S4.7.1 means a motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, and school bus signal lamps intended as replacements for similar lamps on pre-1972 buses are not required to conform to Standard No. 108. This also means, of course, that the manufacturer has no obligation to certify conformance to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. As motor vehicle equipment, however, its manufacturer would be subject to the notification and remedy provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in the event of the determination of a safety related defect.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

February 13, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

This inquiry concerns the applicability of MVSS 108 to school bus replacement lighting equipment.

MVSS 108 provides with respect to replacement equipment as follows: (S4.7.1)

"Each lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment manufactured to replace any lamp, reflective device, or item of associated equipment on any vehicle to which this standard applies, shall be designed to conform with this standard."

I note that as originally issued the amendment to MVSS 108 which extended its applicability to requirements for replacement lighting equipment was to be effective on July 1, 1971 (35 Fed. Reg. 16840) and this effective date was subsequently changed to January 1, 1972. (36 Fed. Reg. 1896)

My specific question is with respect to school buses manufactured prior to January 1, 1972. As I read MVSS 108, its requirements do not apply to replacement equipment for these older vehicles manufactured prior to January 1972 and, therefore, replacement lighting equipment for such pre-1972 school buses, including replacements for the signal lamp required of school buses in S4.1.4, are not required to conform to MVSS 108.

Would you please advise whether any understanding of the applicability of MVSS 108 is correct.

Very truly yours,

Howard A. Heffron

ID: nht76-2.6

DATE: 03/15/76

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

TO: Alberto Negro - FIAT

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 6, 1975, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion.

You asked whether the standard permits marking or penetration of the protected zone to a depth greater than 1/4 inch, by windshield wipers during a barrier crash test. Please excuse our delay in answering your question.

Paragraph S5. of Standard No. 219 states that "no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template" (emphasis added.) Windshield wipers are "components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield." Therefore, Standard No. 219 does allow penetration of the protected zone by windshield wipers during the barrier crash test.

Please note that Standard No. 219 was amended, Docket 74-21, Notice 3, to substitute the term "daylight opening" for "windshield opening", and to add the new term to the requirements of paragraph S5. The amendments are effective September 1, 1976, for passenger cars, and September 1, 1977, for multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. I am enclosing a copy of the notice for your information.

Please contact us if we can of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT - U.S.A. BRANCH

November 6, 1975

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A.

We are kindly requesting your official interpretation of the Paragraph S.5 of the Standard 219 - "Windshield Zone Intrusion":

". . .no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, affixed according to S6, to a depth of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield below the protected zone defined in S6."

The windshield wipers of a vehicle, that are normally in contact with the windshield under barrier crash condition could become detached from the windshield and spring back after impact penetrating the protected area for a depth of more than one-quarter inch or leave a light mark on the windshield surface.

In our opinion such penetration or marking is permitted by the Std. 219 and does not represent any safety hazard. We would appreciate your prompt reply with the official NHTSA interpretation on the matter.

Alberto Negro Director

ID: nht88-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/88

FROM: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS INC

TO: TAYLOR VINRON -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/25/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BYUNG M. SOH, REDBOOK A33(6); VSA 108(A)2(A); STANDARD 108; STANDARD 211

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We would like to have your opinion on the enclosed Hub Cap, whether it violates any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

It is structured to meet FMVSS No. 571.211. We, however, feel that incorporation of LED's on the hub cap need to be clarified from your office. As described in our press release, the intensity of the LED is maximum 40mmAmp, and it is designed solely fo r cosmetic purpose, not for illuminating purpose.

Your immediate reply would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Enc.: 1. our press release 2. color photo of product in motion

STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap

What is STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Cap?

A Hub Cap that has a self-contained motion activating generator in the core of the Hub Cap, and made of durable, rust-proof, virgin ABS. Maintenance Free and requires NO special tools or knowledge for installation. This innovative concept is patented i n 18 countries including the U.S.A. Requires NO wiring and can be installed/replaced just a easily as replacing a regular Hub Cap.

How will STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap Work?

STARRACE has 14 LED lights aligned on a linear plane of a hub cap diameter, and self-motion activation generator which could generate a minimum 20 to a maximum 40 mmAmps/LED's depending on the RPM's. Intensity of the LED lights proportionate to the spee d of the vehicle, as it triggers ON/OFF automatically by motion.

Target Market of the STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Caps?

According to our survey, major demographic target market falls in those ages between 18 to 35, male and female, nationwide: People who spend a considerable amount of money for automotive accessories should be a primary target group. The secondary target group could be those who drive major or rural highways daily. An excellent Safety device by enhancing visibility to other driver in addition to its unique cosmetic purpose. Another substantial potential market is a segment of car owners who like to dec orate their cars to distinguish them from others. STARRACE will certainly satisfy ego's of those sectors.