ID: nht75-4.26

DATE: 06/10/75

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

TO: Hickman Hampel Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 10, 1975, petitioning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to authorize the use of tempered glass for motorcycle windscreens.

As you know, Standard No. 205 and USAS Z26.1 prohibits the use of tempered glass in motorcycle windscreens. The rationale for this requirement is that tempered glass when impacted either shatters, showering the operator with glass pellets, or crazes, thereby obscuring the operator's vision. Consequently, while there are definite safety advantages to the use of windshield wipers, it is our view that they do not offset the dangers cited above. Your petition, therefore, is denied.

We trust you will be able to find a laminated glass or acrylic which meets both your requirements and our standard, and wish you success in this endeavor.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

March 10, 1975

Guy Hunter -- Safety Standard Engineer, National Highway Safety Traffic Administration

Re: Petition for Approval of Tempered Glass for Motorcycle Windscreens

Dear Mr. Hunter:

Thank you for your offer of prompt evaluation and assistance. I do hope, based on the overall improvement in safety for the motorcycle rider, you will permit the use of tempered glass in a motorcycle windscreen. My conversations with suppliers of laminated and tempered glass have convinced me tempered glass is probably the best product available for our needs. It apparently will take a great deal of physical abuse, has good transparency, and will tolerate the action of a windshield washer and wiper without undue scratching.

During our phone conversation, you mentioned the energy absorbing characteristic of laminated glass is the main reason it is exclusively specified for the windshields of closed vehicles. On a motorcycle, a windscreen made of acrylic, polycarbonate, or tempered glass can be fastened to the supporting fairing with breakable nylon bolts. The largest fairing manufacturer, Vetter, emphasises this safety feature. All their acrylic windscreens are fastened with nylon bolts which will break if a rider is thrown forward and impacts heavily against the windscreen. My windscreens will all be fastened with identical or comparable nylon bolts.

Please send me a letter giving me approval, at least on an interim experimental basis, to use tempered glass. Also, please initiate action which will hopefully result in formal approval of tempered glass under Code 205 and ANS Z 26.

Very truly yours,

John S. Hickman, President -- HICKMAN HAMPEL CORP.

ID: nht75-3.7

DATE: 11/18/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 15, 1975, in which you request an interpretation of paragraph S7.1.3 of Standard No. 301, as to whether it is permissible to stop an electric fuel pump prior to the rollover test.

Paragraph S7.1.3 provides that "If the vehicle has an electrically driven fuel pump that normally runs when the vehicle's electrical system is activated, it is operating at the time of a barrier crash." The static rollover test specified by S6.4 is not a barrier crash, and therefore is not covered by S7.1.3. In the amendments to Standard No. 301 published on October 15, 1975 (40 FR 48352), the addition of the phrase "In meeting the requirements of S6.1 through S6.3" to S7.1.3 clarifies the intent of the agency not to require that an electric fuel pump be operating at the time of the rollover test, because the rollover test is required by paragraph S6.4. Therefore, you may turn off the pump if it is still working at the time of the static rollover test.

SINCERELY,

October 15, 1975

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

I would like to ask your interpretation of the following phrase which is found in MVSS 301, S.7.1.3 :

"at the time of the barrier crash"

My understanding is that this phrase means that we should turn on the electric system which activates the electric fuel pump before the barrier crash test and leave it on through the subsequent roll over test.

The breakage of the battery and the wiring disconnection, due to the crash, may or may not stop the electric fuel pump, but if it is still working, we should not turn off the switch.

Is my understanding on the above mentioned phrase correct, or may we turn off the pump if it is still working during the roll over test?

Your interpretation on the above will be greatly appreciated.

There may have been a discussion on this matter before. It would be a great help if you could send us the documents on the resolution of that discussion.

Thank you.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Naoyoshi Suzuki

Staff, Safety

ID: nht94-4.97

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 7, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bryan J. Williams -- Director, International Operations, Red Spot Paint & Varnish Co Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/24/94 FROM BRYAN J. WILLIAMS TO TAYLOR VINSON (OCC 10437)

TEXT: This is in reply to your FAX of October 24, 1994, to Taylor Vinson of this Office requesting an interpretation regarding the relationship of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 to an AAMVA list.

Your company manufactures UV coatings for polycarbonate headlamp lenses. These "provide abrasion resistance properties as well as protecting the plastic lens from the deleterious effects of outdoor exposure." One of these coatings, UVT200, is used by Fo rd, General Motors, and Chrysler on headlamp lenses. However, "UVT200 does not appear on the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) 'Listing of Acceptable Plastics for Optical Lenses and Reflectors Used on Motor Vehicles.'" You info rm us that some overseas headlamp manufacturers believe that appearance on the list is required by Federal law and is a prerequisite to certification. The question you ask is:

Must a coating for plastic (polycarbonate) headlamp lenses appear on the AAMVA "Listing . . ." in order to meet the requirements of FMVSS 108?

The answer is no. Paragraph S5.1.2 of Standard No. 108 requires that plastic materials used in lenses (which include headlamp lenses) conform to SAE Recommended Practice J576c, Plastic Materials for Use in Optical Parts, Such as Lenses and Reflectors of Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices, May 1970. Under SAE J576c's outdoor exposure test, the luminous transmittance of the material must not change by more than 25% from its performance before the test. In appearance, the headlamp lens material must not sho w surface deterioration, crazing, dimensional changes, or delamination. Also, under paragraph S5.1.2(b), after the outdoor exposure test, the haze and surface luster of the material must not be greater than 30 percent haze, as measured by ASTM D-1003-61 . Manufacturers have found that a coating is required for the plastics used in headlamp lenses to meet Standard No. 108's outdoor exposure requirements. However, neither SAE J576c or Standard No. 108 require the coating, let alone specify what coating is acceptable. The decision to coat, and the choice of coating, is that of the manufacturer in determining compliance with and certification to Standard No. 108. Therefore, the AAMVA list has no legal relationship to Standard No. 108 and it is immaterial to NHTSA whether the coating used is or is not on the AAMVA list.

ID: mills.ztv

Mr. Robert G. Mills
Supervisor, Homologation and Publications
Triumph Motorcycles, Ltd.
Jacknell Road
Hinckley, Leicestershire LE10 3BS
United Kingdom

Dear Mr. Mills:

This is in reply to your fax of August 22, 2003, with reference to paragraph S7.9.6.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You described a single motorcycle headlamp "with two separate illuminating compartments, one of which contains the lower beam and the other the upper beam." The projectors providing each beam would be mounted at the same height and symmetrically disposed around the vertical centerline of the motorcycle. When only the lower beam is activated, the lighting array would be asymmetric; however, the lower beam remains activated when the upper beam is activated, resulting in a symmetric lighting display. You are aware of our 1994 and 1995 interpretations to Jeffrey Shetler of Kawasaki which, in your view, "clearly indicate that an asymmetric lower beam coming from a single headlamp is not considered to comply with the standard." You have asked us to reconsider these interpretations in view of the fact that paragraph S7.9.6.2(c) permits asymmetrical lighting in a two-headlamp motorcycle headlighting system when an upper beam headlamp and a lower beam headlamp are mounted on either side of the vertical centerline.

Our previous letters to Mr. Shetler were based upon Table IV of Standard No. 108 as in effect in 1994 and 1995. Table IV stated that a motorcycle headlamp must be located "On the front, on the vertical centerline, except that if two are used they shall be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline." The headlamp described by Mr. Shetler would be mounted on the vertical centerline, but, as we informed him, "the beams provided by the headlamp are located on either side of the centerline and are therefore asymmetrical in relation to the centerline of the motorcycle when either beam is activated." We did not consider this a configuration that met Table IV.

However, since the time of those earlier interpretation letters, relevant changes have been made to FMVSS No. 108. Today, as a result of a 1998 final rule (63 FR 42582, August 10, 1998) that specifically allows asymmetrical headlamp beams on motorcycles, a single-headlamp beam configuration as you have described would comply with the requirements of S7.9.6.2(a). Furthermore, in this case, we note that all compartments that are wired to illuminate in the upper beam mode must be illuminated when determining compliance with the upper beam photometry requirements.

If you have further questions, you may refer them to Mr. Eric Stas of this office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:108
d.9/26/03

ID: nht67-1.1

DATE: 01/16/67

FROM: William Haddon, Jr., M.D. -- NHTSA

TO: H. H. Brainerd - Pennsylvania Bureau of Traffic Safety

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 7, 1966, seeking clarification of questions posed by certain sections of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

Your first question seeks interpretation as to the time when standards established under former Public Law 87-637 (brake fluid) and Public Law 88-201 (seat belts) become effective. Subsection 117(c) of the Act, although repealing the foregoing Federal statutes, continues in effect any standards effectively issued under those laws "as if they had been effectively issued under section 103 until amended or revoked..." Therefore, the Federal brake fluid and seat belt standands issued by the Secretary of Commerce before September 9, 1966, have continued in effect since that date under authority of section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. The proposed Federal safety standard 209 on seat belts, if issued, will effectively replace the existing Federal seat belt (l5 CFR 9) standard issued on June 25, 1965 (Federal Register July 1, 1965) and the amendment thereto issued August 1, 1966 (Federal Register August 31, 1966).

Your second question asks whether proposed Federal safety standard 109 supersedes the Pennsylvania Law requiring testing and certification of brake linings. Because the Federal standard in question has not been promulgated but only proposed, we are precluded from making any official statement of interpretation regarding its preemption of state laws. However, we very much appreciate your having brought this matter to our attention and you may be assured that it will be fully considered before the initial Federal safety standards are promulgated. Your question will no doubt be clarified at that time.

The remaining questions you have raised seek clarification on how your State may ascertain whether manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, parts and components have complied with applicable Federal standards. We anticipate that the provisions of section 114 of the Act, which require every manufacturer or distributor of motor vehicle equipment to furnish a certification that each such item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, will provide the States with suitable confirmation of compliance. We [Illegible Words) of course, that these provisions will need to be fully implemented at the Federal level by regulations and testing procedures.

I trust this reply will be of assistance to you and that the answered questions will be resolved when the initial standards are promulgated later this month. However, if I can be of further service to you, please do not hesitate to let me know.

ID: nht67-1.24

DATE: 08/18/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lowell K. Bridwell; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request to Dr. Haddon for an interpretation of the term "rigid material" as it appears in paragraph S3.4.1(b) in the National Highway Safety Bureau's "talking paper" of July 6, 1967. This term is identical to that used in paragraph S.3.4.1(b) of Standard 201, issued August 11, 1967. Therefore, the following interpretation applies to Standard 201 as issued August 11, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed.

"Rigid material" does not include a supporting structure of an armrest that is made of flexible spring steel if the supporting structure is designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area.

MERCEDES-BENZ OR NORTH AMERICA INC.

July 11, 1967

Dr. William Haddon, Jr. Director National Highway Safety Bureau

Re.: Application for Binding Ruling Standard 201, provisional July 6, 1967, Armrests S 3.4.1 (b).

As indicated in the discussion of the proposed language on July 9, 1967, we are applying for a ruling that the definition of "rigid material" in line 4 shall be understood not to include such supporting structures of armrests which are made of flexible spring steel when such supporting structure designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area, and shall therefore not be subject to the requirement of "minimum vertical height of not less than 1"."

Argument: There are numerous armrest designs which may not qualify under the requirements of S 3.4.1(a) since they are at some part less than 2" wide laterally, and therefore must qualify under Para. (b). If such armrests are designed to combine the function of a door opener, i.e. with a fingerhole, a flexible spring core is ideally suited and has many times been used as a demonstrably safe design in the past. The spring material, which need not necessarily be steel but may also take the form of various plastics, provides the necessary strength for vertical support required for an armrest but gives upon transverse impact to avoid injury.

We should be grateful to receive your ruling at the earliest possible date in view of current production schedules for the 1968 models, and in view of the fact that with this indication we agreed to wave further amending language of the standard Para. S 3.4.1 (b), so as to provide for the possibility of clear definitions in some future revisions.

Respectfully,

H. C. Hoppe

ID: nht67-1.25

DATE: 12/13/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; William Haddon, Jr., M.D.; NHTSA

TO: Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter to me dated November 25, you have raised several questions relating to the status of Japanese motorcycles manufactured after December 31, 1967, and shipped to the United States without windshields.

Specifically you have stated:

"1. Is the . . . understanding (correct) that the importation of motorcycles not equipped with windowshields and/or any glazing material will not violate the . . . National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966."

Answer: Your understanding is correct. Motorcycles are not required to be equipped with windshields, and conformity to Initial Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 is required only if motorcycles are equipped with windshields.

"2. In case motor cycles without glazing material are imported, what shall motorcycle manufacturers do in respect to certificate requirements according to Paragraph 114 of the Act and the Notice of October 31, 1967."

Answer: No certification is required for motorcycles which are imported without glazing materials.

"3. If certification is not required for motorcycles not equipped with glazing material, would there be any problem at the time of importation at U.S. Customs offices that may naturally seek safety certification on all motor vehicles covered by the Federal Standards."

Answer: Under the proposed joint regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department (Bureau of Customs) and the Department of Transportation covering importation of motor vehicles manufactured after December 31, 1967, vehicles not bearing certification will be admitted upon a declaration by the importer or(Illegible Word) that such vehicle was manufactured on a date when no standards applicable to the vehicle were in effect. To insure that there is no difficulty at the port of entry, it is contemplated that Customs officials will be notified that motorcycles without windshields may be admitted without certification. The proposed joint regulations were published in the Federal Register for November 30, 1967, and I enclose a copy for your consideration.

You have further asked: "Would there be any particular procedures that could be taken by Japanese motorcycle manufacturers in advance to avoid such a possibility."

Answer: If the motorcycles are shipped in a manner in which they are not readily visible, it might be advisable to atencil the shipping containers with a legend to the effect that the motor vehicle therein is not subject to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (i.e., a motorcycle not equipped with a windshield).

Of course, any glazing material shipped for subsequent installation on a motorcycle must bear appropriate certification.

I hope this sufficiently answers your questions.

ID: nht69-1.24

DATE: 05/28/69

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

TO: Cony America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 2, 1969 in which you asked whether the Cony vehicle, model AF11SFC, which you import, must be equipped with a windshield defrosting and defogging system in compliance with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 103.

You describe the vehicle as a multipurpose passenger vehicle having an open cab configuration, and your letter states that defrosting and defogging of its windshield is accomplished by natural air currents while the vehicle is operating. You also indicate that the vehicle will be operated on the public highways.

On the basis of the information contained in your letter and study of the two photographs of the Cony that accompanied it, it is our view that, subject to the exceptions noted below, models of this vehicle that have windshield or are fitted for installation of windshields must also have windshield defrosting and defogging systems.

Vehicles which are operated in the continental United States may encounter icy or snowy conditions in which the absence of a windshield defrosting system may pose an unreasonable safety hazard. The fact that the vehicle lacks an enclosed cab does not appreciably reduce that hazard. However, we do not interpret Standard No. 103 as requiring a defrosting and defogging system in a vehicle that has no windshield and on which a windshield cannot be installed without such major modifications as would make the installer himself a motor vehicle manufacturer. One of the photographs you submitted shows your vehicle without a windshield, but it does not contain enough detail to enable us to determine whether the vehicle falls into the latter category I have described.

You should be aware of two exceptions to the requirements of Standard No. 103, either of which may apply to the Cony. First, section 371.7 of our regulations provides that the standards apply only to vehicles which have a curb weight of more than 1,000 pounds. Hence, the Cony need not conform to the requirements of the standard if its curb weight is 1,000 pounds or less. Second, Standard No. 103 applies only to vehicles manufactured for sale in the continental United States. Therefore, your vehicle could be imported into jurisdictions such as Hawaii and the Virgin Islands even though it fails to conform to the requirements of that standard. The contents of your letter do not furnish enough information to permit us to ascertain whether either exception would apply.

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesistate to call upon me for it.

ID: nht70-1.14

DATE: 05/18/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Calhoun & Phelan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of April 29, 1970, to the National Commission on Products Safety, that has been referred to this office.

In your letter you ask for our advice as to whether or not there are any accepted standards for passenger car automobile tires such as weight and size limits. We do have standards for passenger car tires such as weight limit versus ply rating and there are accepted tests to determine the reliability of tires. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 has been established for that purpose. The Standard's requirements are for labeling, which includes maximum inflation pressure and maximum load rating, strength, continuous load-carrying endurance and high speed performance under load.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars, requires, among other things, a placard, permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. The placard must contain all of the information spelled out in Part S.4.3 of that Standard, a copy of which is contained in the enclosed booklet on page 19. Tire labeling requirements along with test procedures are listed under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, on pages 12 through 19.

The tire to which you refer is a 2-ply 4-ply rated tire. The load ratings for a 855-14 tire can be found on page 15 of the enclosed booklet. The maximum load rating is 1,770 lbs. at the maximum inflation pressure of 32 p.s.i.

It is important for you to note that the test procedures have to do with new tires. We have no procedures for testing tires that have failed.

Although we do not become involved in private litigations, there is a publication for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, under the title, "Automobile Accident Litigation - A Report to the Federal Judicial Center to the Department of Transportation," that might be of interest to you. The price for the publication is $ 2.75.

We are also enclosing the following publications:

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966

Summary of 1968 Compliance Tests Arranged by Standard, that includes a General 855-14 tire and, a form letter explaining the Bureau's position relative to test results and where they might be obtained.

We trust this information will be useful to you.

ID: nht70-2.17

DATE: 07/21/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Mr. James Deifster

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your request for information on requirements for camper manufacturers has been referred to this office for reply. The information we have received states that you are a manufacturer of campers, selling them to dealers, and also installing them on trucks.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. @(Illegible Word) et seq., (copy enclosed) requires manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to manufacture their products so that they comply, and to "certify" that they comply, with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Camper bodies for both slide-in and chassis-mount camper installation are items of motor vehicle equipment and must comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, will be certified by their manufacturer that they comply with the standard. I enclose a copy of the standard and the regulations governing certification for your information, Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the USA Standard(Illegible Words) "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways." This USAS standard can be obtained for a small fee from the USA Standards Institute, 10 East 40th Street, New York, N.Y. 10016.

If you install slide-in camper bodies on pick-up trucks only, you are not subject to additional requirements. However, if you install chassis-mount camper bodies onto truck chassis, you are in addition to being a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, a manufacturer of motor vehicles, specifically, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and are required to comply with regulations and standards applicable to manufacturers of multipurpose passenger vehicles. Copies of these requirements, which have been promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 and codified in Chapter 5 (formerly Chapter 3) of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, are available from the Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402, under the title Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The price is $ 8.00, which includes a subscription for one year to receive copies of amendments.

Because of the relative length and complexity of these requirements, it is difficult to summarize them for you here. Many trade associations have familiarized themselves with them in order to assist their membership in complying with them. If after studying the materials you have specific questions concerning their application to you, we will be pleased to answer them.

I have also enclosed a mailing list questionnaire. If you will complete and return it to the address indicated thereon, you will receive future notices pertaining to those areas you have marked.

ENCLOSURES