ID: nht80-3.32

DATE: 08/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 2, 1980, to Taylor Vinson of this office with respect to a driving lamp that is being used by a number of your customers as a replacement motorcycle headlight. In your opinion the lamp has not been tested for compliance with Federal motorcycle headlamp requirements, and you have asked whether you may continue to sell the item as a driving lamp in spite of the fact "that some customers are utilizing it as a head lamp."

By way of introduction, as you may know, this agency has been in litigation since 1978 over unsealed headlamps that meet European specifications for passenger cars but not the U.S. standards for such lamps. Although they are certified as meeting U.S. requirements for motorcycles only, they are in reality imported and sold as replacement headlamps for passenger cars. Our primary argument in these cases is that the manufacturers of these lamps are legally required to certify compliance with, in the words of the statute, "all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards" which means all standards applicable to any use of which the headlamp is physically capable.

We, therefore, believe that if any lamp is physically capable of replacing a motorcycle headlamp, it should conform and be certified as conforming with SAE J584 incorporated by reference in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. If sales of a noncomplying lamp were actively promoted by the seller to replace a motorcycle headlamp, we could view this as a willful violation of Federal requirements and we would probably engage in appropriate enforcement action.

Your letter implies that the purchasers themselves install the headlamps. This is not a violation of any Federal requirement. But a "manufacturer," "distributor," "dealer," or "motor vehicle repair business" is prohibited by 15 U.S.C. 1597(a)(2)(A) from replacing conforming equipment with a nonconforming item, and liable for a penalty of up to $ 1,000 per item if it does so.

SINCERELY,

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors

July 2, 1980

Taylor Vinson, Esq. Office of Chief Council National Highway Traffice Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Vinson:

Self Cycle & Marine Distributors currently carries within our product line a driving lamp. To our knowledge, this lamp has never been tested for compliance with SAE J584, however, since this light was intended to be used in addition to a OEM headlight it is exempt from this requirement. However, we have found out that a number of consumers are utilizing this light as a replacement headlight in order to give their motorcycle a "chopper" look. Can we continue to sell this item as a driving lamp to spite the fact that some consumers are utilizing it as a head lamp? Until we have an opinion from your office, we have temporary suspended sales on this item as well as frozen our reorder of this item from Japan. Since large sums of money are at stake, I would appreciate an opinion from your office within ten (10) working days.

Paul D. Wharton Chairman of the Board

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-4.27

DATE: 12/09/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wisconsin State Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 28, 1980, letter asking whether Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, requires that there be an aisle to provide access to a side exit. The answer to your question is no.

Standard No. 217 states that side emergency exits on school buses must have an opening of 45 by 24 inches. The standard further states that a vertical transverse plane tangent to the rear most point of a seat back shall pass through the forward edge of the emergency exit. These requirements mean only that the size of the opening must be 45 by 24 inches, and that the opening must be located in a specific place with reference to the seat back.

The Federal government does not require an aisle or other access to a side emergency exit. Although some seats may partially block a side emergency exit, it can still be used for emergency exit purposes and is supplementary to a rear emergency exit. The agency adopted this approach to side emergency exits as a balance between the desire for additional exits in school buses and the need to maintain the fullest possible seating in school buses as well as the proper seat spacing.

A State is permitted to require an aisle leading to the side exit if the State determines that this is an area that it would like to regulate. Such a regulation would not be preempted, because the Federal government does not regulate the placement of aisles in buses. However, the required seat spacing would need to be retained. This means that the seat behind the aisle leading to a side emergency exit would need to have a restraining barrier placed in front of it. The net effect of the aisle and the restraining barrier could be a substantial loss of seating capacity.

SINCERELY,

State of Wisconsin / DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DIVISION OF ENFORCEMENT AND INSPECTION

October 28, 1980

Roy Shannon U.S. Department of Transportation N. H. T. S. A.

Dear Mr. Shannon:

I am writing to you reference our conversation about the 1980 Thomas School Bus Body with the Side Emergency Door. I have enclosed pictures and a sketch with measurements.

In further inspection of this Emergency Door, I find it quite difficult to exit, especially if you are sitting in the seat located in the door opening. (The State of Wisconsin Rule MVD 17 requires a 12 inch aisle to the Emergency Door zone.)

I am interested in the application of your Standard No. 217, Section S5.4.2.1 (b) which reads: In the case of a side emergency door, an opening at least 45 inches high and 24 inches wide. A vertical transverse plane tangent to the rearmost point of a seatback shall pass through the forward edge of a side emergency door. Does this mean that there must be an opening with access or does it mean that there must only be an opening in the side of the bus that size? The seat blocks this emergency door opening so that there is not an opening 45 inches by 24 inches.

Thank you for your interest and attention and if I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Ronald H. Wonders Inspector III

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-4.29

DATE: 12/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 10, 1980, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether Ford may make a minor variation in the language specified in S5.5.2(g) for the label that must be permanently affixed to child restraints. As explained below, you may use the language proposed in your letter.

Section 5.5.1 of the standard requires that each child restraint be permanently labeled with specified information. Section 5.5.3 requires that the information specified in S5.5.2(g)-(k) must be displayed on the child restraint so that it is visible when the restraint is installed in the vehicle.

You state that the only information specified for the visible label that is applicable to the Ford "TOT GUARD" is the language in S5.5.2(g). That section provides that the child restraint must be labeled with the following words:

WARNING! FAILURE TO FOLLOW EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS CAN RESULT IN YOUR CHILD STRIKING THE VEHICLE'S INTERIOR DURING A SUDDEN STOP OR CRASH:

SECURE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT WITH A VEHICLE BELT AS SPECIFIED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS LOCATED .

You are concerned that the above language may create potential confusion for users of the "TOT GUARD" since the user might be led to believe that more than one instruction is applicable. In your proposed revision, the word "each of" would be deleted from the warning and the word "instructions" would be changed to the singular.

Your proposed revision does not make any substantive change in the meaning of the warning specified for the label. Since the proposed change is a minor variation intended to clarify the language for restraints that only need to be labeled with one of the specified instructions, it is permitted.

SINCERELY,

Office of the General Counsel

Ford Motor Company

November 10, 1980

Stephen Oesch, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oesch: In accordance with our telephone conversation this morning, I request confirmation that the following variation of the language specified in subsection S5.5.2(g) acceptably meets the requirements of subsection S5.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213.

WARNING! FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING [INSTRUCTIONS] CAN RESULT IN YOUR CHILD STRIKING THE VEHICLE'S INTERIOR DURING A SUDDEN STOP OR CRASH:

SECURE THIS CHILD RESTRAINT WITH A VEHICLE BELT AS SPECIFIED IN THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS LOCATED UNDER THE SEAT PAD.

None of the instructions specified in subsections S5.5.2(h) through (k) of Standard No. 213 is appropriate for the installation of Ford's "TOT GUARD" child restraint system. Accordingly, were our labelling to employ literally the language set forth in subsection S5.5.2(g), the user would be provided with a single cautionary instruction following the warning paragraph but led to believe by the warning paragraph that more than one instruction is applicable. To avoid potential confusion on this point, we propose to delete the words and letter bracketed and struck-through above and add the underlined language.

I am confident that the Administration will find Ford's proposed version of the warning and instruction language for its TOT GUARD label unobjectionable. I should appreciate, however, having your confirmation that this is the case.

D. G. McGuigan

CC: J. A. STARKEY

ID: nht81-1.20

DATE: 02/27/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 27 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren, Michigan 48092

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your January 12, 1981, letter requesting an interpretation concerning the recent amendment of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which added specifications for seat belt comfort and convenience. Specifically, you asked whether the requirement for seat belt guides contained in paragraph S7.4.6.1 of the amended standard exempts both seats which "fold and then tumble" and seats which "tumble and then fold."

The answer to your question is yes. All rear seats that "tumble" are exempted from the seat belt guide requirements of the standard. The agency did not use the phrase "fold and tumble" in order to clarify that tumbling is the characteristic that gives rise to the exemption. Some future designs may include seats that merely tumble over into the floor, and that do not fold to create the flat cargo surface that is desired in these vehicles. Such a design would be exempted from the seat belt guide requirement. However, seats that only fold (i.e., that do not also tumble) would not be exempted from the requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

12 January 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to request an official interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. Specifically, our question is in reference to the recently published rule on seat belt comfort and convenience.

Paragraph 7.4.6.1 specifies certain requirements for seat belts and seat belt guides except that the requirements do not apply to "rear seats that tumble". The "tumble" function is not expressly defined, however, a reading of the preamble implies that it relates to the type of rear seat used in various Volkswagen products. Our question is then, does this exemption apply to both of the Volkswagen rear seat configurations which are mentioned in the preamble, i.e., both to seats which fold and then tumble, and also to seats which tumble and then fold, as illustrated in the enclosures.

It is our belief that this exemption does apply to both types of seats. Mr. Robert Nelson, the contact person for this rulemaking, concurred with this opinion in a conversation with Mr. Smreker of my staff on 9 January, 1981. However, he suggested that we request written confirmation of this from your office.

So that we may make an informed decision regarding a petition for reconsideration on this matter, we would appreciate receiving a response to the expiration of the 30 day reconsideration period.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

JPS/ubf

Encl.

ID: nht81-1.35

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Yasui & Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

In reply refer to: NOA-30

Mr. Harry Shirai M. Yasui & Company, Ltd. Togin Building Marunouchi 1-4-2, Chiyodaku Tokyo, Japan

Dear Mr. Shirai:

This responds to your October 17, 1980, letter to this agency in which you requested a clarification regarding the regulations applicable to importing used truck tires into the United States. As I understand from your letter, your company collects used truck tires in Japan and ships them to the United States for retreading. However, the tires you are shipping do not have a DOT number on them, which would represent the tire manufacturers' certification that the tires comply with all applicable U.S. requirements. Some of your U.S. customers have refused further shipment of the tires without DOT numbers, based on their belief that accepting the tires would violate Federal regulations. Your customers are correct in their belief that tires imported into the United States must have a manufacturer's certification that the tires comply with all applicable U.S. requirements. However, this requirement can be satisfied without a DOT number on used tires.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)), makes it unlawful for any person to import into the United States any item of motor vehicle equipment, including tires, manufactured on or after the date that an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect, unless the equipment (tire) is in conformity with the standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, took effect on March 1, 1975. That standard requires that tires for vehicles other than passenger cars pass certain performance tests (endurance, strength, and high speed performance) and that the manufacturer label the tire with a DOT number to certify that the tire complies with the requirements of the standard. Any tires without a DOT number that were manufactured after March 1, 1975, would not be in compliance with Standard No. 119. Therefore, such tires, could not legally be imported into the United States, as new tires.

However, there are three ways that used tire casings may be legally brought into the United States. The tires must either (1) have a DOT number, (2) be accompanied by proof that they were manufactured before March 1, 1975, or (3) be accompanied by a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the requirements of Standard No. 119. If the tires do not have any of these certifications, the U.S. Customs Service will seize the tires. Should the tires slip through customs without being seized, the retreaders who import the tires into this country are liable for a fine of up to $1,000 for each tire they bring into the country which does not comply with the requirements, according to section 109 of the Traffic Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398).

Should you need any further information on this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-1.36

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 11 1981

Mr. Don Gerkin Product Engineer COSCO 2525 State Street Columbus IN 47201

Dear Mr. Gerkin:

This responds to your letter of January 8, 1981, concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You asked whether urethane foam can be used to meet the requirement of S5.2.3.2 of the standard. The answer is yes.

S5.2.3.2 provides, in part, that:

Each system surface . . . which is contactable by the dummy head when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1 shall be covered with slow-recovery, energy-absorbing material with the following characteristics . . . .(Emphasis added.)

The purpose of S5.2.3.2 is to require the use of material that will protect a child's head in an impact. To protect the child's head, the material must be capable of dissipating the force of the impact (i.e., energy-absorbing).

To prevent the use of material that will rebound immediately after impact or will not recover after one impact, the standard requires the use of slow-recovery material. That requirement acts as an additional safeguard to ensure that the material absorbs the energy of the impact to prevent injury and does not act as an energy storer or spring that, upon rebound, releases the full energy of the initial impact. In addition, the requirement prevents the use of material that cannot recover after being impacted once (e.g., styrofoam). As you pointed out, certain types of urethane foam can absorb energy and do not immediately recover or rebound after impact and are thus permissible.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

January 8, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

When the Standard No. 213 Child Restraint Systems was published, one of my many tasks was to find a slow recovery, energy absorbing material to cover surfaces for compliance to head impact protection.

After an extensive search, we settled on using Ensolite Foam in our Child Restraints, a very expensive product compared to Urethane Foam. I have tried, without success, to obtain a definition of slow recovery, energy absorbing material from manufacturers as well as NHTSA.

It appears to me now that inexpensive Urethane Foam that meets the thickness and compression requirements would comply to the 213 Standard. Urethane Foam does absorb energy and recover - at some rate.

Assuming our Child Restraints pass all other criteria of the Standard, and we did use Urethane Foam, would we still be in compliance to the Standard?

As there would be a large savings to our company if we could make a turn-around from Ensolite to Urethane Foam, your prompt attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Don Gerken Product Engineer

rm

ID: nht81-1.40

DATE: 03/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Zemaitis; NHTSA

TO: Poly Dyne Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Date: March 16 1981 NO9-00

Subject: Poly Dyne Engineering P.O. Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

From: Motor Vehicle Program Director, Region IX

To: Office of Chief Counsel NOA-30

Enclosed is a letter dated March 6, 1981, and an attached brochure illustrating a reflective device.

We would appreciate your response to the subject.

Joseph Zemaitis

Enclosure

Poly Dyne Engineering Box 3517 Scottsdale, Arizona 85257

March 6, 1981

Joseph F. Zemaitis National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2 Embarcadero Center, Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94111 Dear Mr. Zemaitis:

Recently, we have requested copies of regulations pertaining to standards and usage of triangle type flares of warning signals as related to overland trucks. Your office has been helpful in supplying us with copies of current DOT regulations along with procedures to follow for possible amendments.

The purpose of this letter and prior inquiries was to initiate some action that would allow the use of our new patented triangle signal either in addition to or in place of the type that now is carried by truckers to be set on the ground in proper orientation to disabled or parked trucks.

Our product, photos and literature enclosed, has been designed for either rear or side mount on trucks, RVs or any other vehicle and is automatically deployed into its triangular configuration upon withdrawal from the case. Not only is the signal weather tight, but it is permanently mounted on a vehicle and can be rapidly deployed in a matter of seconds or re-encased in the same amount of time. Naturally, the product has been designed to meet DOT specifications for size, reflective surface area, reflectivity and environmental requirements. We have found that a signal of this type mounted a minimum of 3 to 5 feet above the road surface becomes highly visible to approaching traffic from far greater distances than those sitting on the ground. Additionally, they are not subject to the effects of high winds, theft, or the all too common breakage from passing traffic and, by the ease with which they can be deployed, would encourage their use by truckers as well as by RV owners, truck and trailer rental companies, delivery services, etc...We believe that more extensive use of this type of warning device would add significantly to traffic safety.

Needless to say, we are enthused about our new warning signal and have received unusually enthusiastic response from truckers and fleet owners who have seen this device and would like to see it used in place of those now required for road surface display.

We would appreciate your review of the enclosed information as well as your opinion of its benefits and your estimate of the amount of time and effort that may be involved in obtaining DOT approval for its use.

O. Vandewege, Pres. PolyDyne Engineering

OVbb

ID: nht73-6.18

DATE: 03/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

COPYEE: J. G. WOMACK; MR. TOMS; MR. HARTMAN; MR. CARTER

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 16, 1973, concerning the safety standard applicable to the sling for the upper torso belt used in Ford's 1974 model restraint system.

The schematic drawing attached to your letter shows that the sling attaches to the roof rail and serves the function of an upper torso belt anchorage. We agree with you that the sling is subject to the requirements of Standard No. 210 and not to the requirements of Standard No. 209. Although the sling is made of fabric webbing, its function is that of an anchorage and it is therefore subject to the anchorage standard.

Yours truly,

Ford Motor Company

February 16, 1973

Douglas W. Toms Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Toms:

An inquiry has been raised by certain of our suppliers with regard to one feature of Ford's 1974 model year restraint system. Ford believes an interpretative statement by the Administration would be desirable to resolve questions that now exist, or may in the future arise, with regard to this type of item.

The attached schematic shows a typical 1974 Ford restraint system. The non-detachable upper torso portion of the restraint system is looped through a "sling" attached to the roof rail of the vehicle. The "sling" is depicted in more detail in View-A of the attached drawing.

This sling is an an anchorage for purposes of Standard No. 210 for several reasons. First, Standard No. 210 defines a seat belt anchorage as the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure. The sling clearly serves this function. Second, as the sling location determines the angle at which the upper torso restraint crosses the occupant's chest, the sling would fall within the acceptable range for upper torso anchorage locations specified in Standard No. 210.

As we have chosen to use webbing in the sling (as opposed to a cable or some such material), the concern expressed involves the question as to whether a potential conflict could arise in interpreting what requirements this sling must meet. If the sling were to be considered by an independent testing laboratory to be part of the seat belt assembly as defined in Standard No. 209, it would apply the

webbing requirements set forth in Section S4.2 of Standard No. 209 to the sling webbing. We would urge that it should not be necessary to meet these webbing requirements as the sling is part of the anchorage and meets the strength requirements of Standard No. 210.

We request, therefore, that the Administration concur in Ford's interpretation that the sling as depicted in the attached schematic is a part of the anchorage and not a part of the seat belt assembly.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. ECKHOLD

Director

Automotive Safety Office

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

FORD-MERCUPY MODEL 65 SHOWN

TORINO-MONTEGO-COUGAR

T-BIRD-MARK IV-LINCOLN

MODELS 65 TYPICAL

ID: nht73-6.21

DATE: 02/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 4, 1973, concerning your continuing uncertainties about the intent of sections S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3 of Standard 210.

In your figure 1, assuming the seat is not adjustable, the contact points would be (b) in the first drawing and (c) in the second. However, a rigid attachment of the length shown in the second drawing would appear to violate the intent of S4.3.1.1 that the angle formed by the webbing in passing from the hardware to the seating reference point should be a forward angle.

In your figure 2, if the bracket can be rotated so that an extension of its centerline would pass through the seating reference point, we would consider point (p) to be the nearest contact point for purposes of S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3.

With respect to the proposed used of a flexible wire, as shown in figure 3, the ability of the wire to move with reasonable freedom removes it from the category of rigid hardware. We would consider the points shown as (c) and (f) to be the appropriate contact points for purposes of S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.3.

January 4, 1973

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Although we have received and appreciated your interpretation of MVSS 210, S4.3.1.1, and S4.3.1.3, Seat Belt Anchorages, this matter remains rather vague to us. Please permit us to restate the situations in question.

We would like to use the seat belt system in which the buckle is attached to the floor panel (tunnel) or seat structure by a rigid bracket as indicated in the enclosed Figure 1. In this situation, please advise us of the correct nearest contact point and angle in each of the attached drawings.

If the rigid bracket with buckle is able to rotate about point "P", as shown in Figure 2, please advise us where we should consider the nearest contact point and angle.

We are also considering using another type of seat belt system, as shown in Figure 3, in which the buckle is attached to the floor panel through the flexible wire. Again, please indicate the exact nearest contact point and angle.

Thank you for your kind assistance.

Tatsuo Kato Engineering Representative Liaison Office in USA Enclosures

The nearest contact point: (A) or (B)?

The angle: 20 degree SEATING REFERENCE POINT

WEBBING

HORIZONTAL LINE

TONGUE

BUCKLE

RIGID BRACKET FIXED TO FLOOR PANEL OR SEAT STRUCTURE

SEATING REFERENCE POINT

THE NEAREST CONTACT POINT: (C), (D) or The angle: 20 degree [Graphics Omitted]

FIGURE 1

RIGID BRACKET

POINT "P"

[Graphics omitted]

FIGURE 3

The nearest contact point: (A), (B) or (C)? The angle: 20 degree SEATING REFERENCE POINT

BUCKLE

FLEXIBLE STEEL WIRE

[Graphs Omitted]

BUCKLE

SEATING REFERENCE POINT The nearest contact point: (D), (E), or (F)? The angle: 20 degree <ODY>

ID: nht74-1.30

DATE: 02/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maserati, S.p.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 22, 1974, asking whether paragraph S4.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 precludes the mounting of rear lamps in a transparent "Lexan" panel "not involved in the driver's rearward vision."

Paragraph S4.3.1 states in pertinent part that ". . . each lamp . . . shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair . . . ." The "glazing" referred to is the glazing regulated by Standard No. 205, and refers generally to glazing used in windshields, windows, doors, and interior partitions. Accordingly, Standard No. 108 does not preclude the mounting of rear lamps in the "Lexan" panel.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

OFFICINE ALFIERI MASERATI S.p.A.

January 22, 1974

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

Attention: Mr. Vinson

Subject: Request for clarification of MVSS No. 108, Paragraph S.4.3.1.

Gentlemen:

Since we are planning to introduce soon in the United States our new model, the "KHAMSIN" (model 120), we would very much appreciate your clarifying the intent of paragraph S.4.3.1. of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 -- "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment."

Paragraph S.4.3.1 of MVSS No. 108 states that "each lamp . . . . . shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair, . . .".

As you will see in the enclosed documents, the "KHAMSIN" is a two door GT coupe which embodies, as a new styling concept, a rear end panel made of transparent "Lexan" material. The two rear combination lamps are securely mounted on this Lexan panel.

The Lexan material is a polycarbonate sheet, produced by the General Electric Company under the designation "LEXAN MR-4000". It is especially treated on both sides in order to make it scratch resistant. It is completely collision proof and is classified by the "Underwriters' Laboratories Inc." as the sole transparent antilock-picking material.

The mounting of the rear combination lamps on the rear end panel is described in the enclosed blueprint No. 120 VS 83090 and shown on the 2 enclosed B & W photographs.

This tansparent rear end panel is not involved in the driver's rearward vision and it is transparent only for aesthetic purposes. It is permanently mounted on the vehicle and its replacement constitutes a major repair.

We believe that paragraph S.4.3.1 of Standard No. 108 was intended to prevent mounting of lamps on glazing material which concurs to the driver's vision (such as windows), but since the wording of this paragraph is not clear to us, we would appreciate very much your clarifying if mounting the rear lamps such as it is done on the KHAMSIN does comply with MVSS No. 108.

Thanking you very much in advance for a prompt answer, we remain at your disposal should you need more information on this matter.

Very truly yours,

Bernard Belier -- U.S. Resident Engineer for MASERATI S.p.A.