ID: 2648o

Ms. Laura C. Boniske
2928 Coconut Grove Drive
Coral Gables, FL 33134

Dear Ms. Boniske:

This responds to your letter asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, as they apply to "materials used in the manufacture of an aftermarket product which will be utilized in the occupant compartment of a vehicle." In an October 27, 1987 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff, you mentioned in particular an item of equipment consisting of a pad for cushioning safety belts. Generally speaking, items of motor vehicle equipment are not covered by Standard No. 302.

Standard No. 302 is a vehicle standard and as such applies to completed vehicles. No vehicle can be manufactured unless the materials used in it comply with the requirements of the standard. The general rule is that aftermarket products may be added to vehicles, even if the addition of those products causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, without violating the requirements of Federal law.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative . . . any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." NHTSA would consider the installation of safety belt pads that do not meet the requirements of Standard No. 302 as "rendering inoperative" an element of design (flammability resistance) installed in accordance with an applicable Federal safety standard. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business that installed a safety belt pad which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. We note also that, since safety belts are safety devices installed in accordance with Safety Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, those commercial businesses would be prohibited from installing the safety belt pad if its installation would impair the effective operation of the belts. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of /108.

The prohibitions of /108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design in his or her vehicle. Therefore, aftermarket safety belt pads may be sold to a vehicle owner for installation in his or her vehicle regardless of whether the pad complies with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

There are two factors which ought to be considered by the manufacturers of safety belt pads which do not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. First is the possibility of liability under State and common law if those pads were to catch fire in a situation where a pad complying with Standard No. 302 would not have caught fire, or if those pads burn much more rapidly than pads that comply with Standard No. 302. Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related defect in your products. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act require that, when an item or motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser. In any event, we urge you to ensure that your products would not negatively affect the safety provided by the underlying belt assembly.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:VSA#302#209 d:2/10/88

ID: nht81-2.50

DATE: 07/22/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 8, 1981, concerning Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You are correct that my letter of June 1, 1981, on the abrasion test procedure of the standard should have referred to section 5.1(d), instead of to section 5.2(d).

You also suggested that in the process of clarifying the standard's abrasion requirements, the agency should consider possible modifications to sections 4.2(e) and (f) of the standard. In the process of reviewing the abrasion test requirements, the agency will also examine those other sections to determine what changes should be made.

Finally, you raised the issue of whether the standard, as with other national and international standards, should have a requirement that conditioned webbing must retain a certain percentage of its unconditioned strength and must also meet the minimum strength requirement for unconditioned webbing. The agency is not aware of any data indicating that our current conditioned strength requirements are insufficient.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

JUNE 8, 1981

F Berndt -- U.S. Department Transportation, National Highway Traffic Administration

Dear Mr Berndt

Many thanks for your letter dated 1 June 1981 regarding abrasion testing to FMVSS 209. However, should Section 5.2 (d), when it occurs, read 5.1 (d)?

I understand your reasoning for the clarification, however, should this be extended to cover Sections 4.2 (e) and 4.2 (f)?

In most of the National and International specifications which we test to the strength after conditioning must be above a certain percentage of its unconditioned strength and also above the minimum required strength of the webbing. You are permitting the use of webbing that might, after abrasion, fall below your minimum strength requirement. Do you have any comments on this?

I look forward to receiving a prompt reply to the first paragraph. Yours sincerely

J E BINGHAM -- SENIOR TEST ENGINEER, MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY COMPONENTS SECTION, BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION

ID: 77-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Lucas Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Lucas Industries' November 1, 1977, request that the upcoming passive restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, be amended to provide alternative compliance by means of installation of active lap and shoulder belts equipped with an ignition interlock system.

Section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides in relevant part that "No Federal motor vehicle safety standard may . . . provide that a manufacturer is permitted to comply with such standard by means of . . . any safety belt interlock system." (15 U.S.C. 1410b(b)(1)). It is the agency's opinion that this provision operates as a strict prohibition on amendments of Standard No. 208 that would have the effect of permitting compliance by provision of an ignition interlock system. This opinion is confirmed by Conference Report language on @ 125 which states:

No matter what procedure is followed, the conference substitute prohibits the re-establishment of the safety belt interlock system or continuous buzzer as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard. H.R. Rep. 93-1452, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess at 45 (1974).

In view of this statutory prohibition, Lucas Industries' request for amendment of the upcoming requirements of Standard No. 208 cannot be considered by the agency.

SINCERELY,

Lucas Industries Inc

NOVEMBER 1, 1977

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject Petition - Passenger Car Occupant Restraint

The Lucas Electrical Company Limited of Great Britain is, like ourselves, a subsidiary of Lucas Industries Limited.

Lucas Electrical, supported by us, feel that there should be an option to the passive restraint systems mandated in the early 1980's. We believe that, for some people, lap and shoulder belts with ignition interlock would provide a more acceptable alternative to the passive restraint systems presently being planned, and we ask that this option be considered.

A copy of the Lucas Electrical statement is attached.

A J Burgess Vice President (Technical)

cc: JAMES J. BLANCHARD -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 22, 1977

Passive Restraint Systems - USA

Now that a regulation has been published requiring progressive introduction of passive restraint systems on new vehicles, it seems to us that the seat belt - ignition interlock system should be reconsidered.

This system had the blessing of NHTSA in terms of safety, who were unsuccessful in their attempts to prevent its withdrawal as a legal requirement in the USA. However, now that passive restraints can be anticipated the reasons for withdrawal of the interlock vanish, based as they were on avoiding the imposition of a requirement which was unpopular in some quarters. Should such a system be re-introduced, there would be no question of imposing it, and free choice could be exercised by any prospective buyer.

Thus, bearing in mind the undoubted safety potential of such a system, we propose that it be re-introduced based on the original technical requirements of NHTSA.

ID: 001179drn

Pierre Villeneuve, Standard Technician
Girardin Minibus
Trans Canada Highway
Drummondville, (Quebec) J2B 6V4
CANADA

Dear Mr. Villeneuve:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release. Specifically, you wish to know "how many emergency exits" are needed on each side of a non-school bus over 4,536 kg (10,000 pounds) GVWR with "21 passengers" (not including the driver).

Standard No. 217 requirements applicable to the bus at issue are at S5.2.2.1 and S5.2.2.2, Buses with GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds. S5.2.2.1 requires that non-school buses provide unobstructed openings for emergency exits based on the number of "designated seating positions on the bus," a term which includes the drivers seat. Thus, the bus at issue has 22 designated seating positions.

Standard No. 217 does not specify the number or types (i.e., doors versus windows) of emergency exits that must be provided. However, the standard specifies the total area of the unobstructed openings for emergency exits that must be provided. For the bus at issue, S5.2.2.1 specifies that the unobstructed openings for emergency exits must amount to 9,504 square centimeters (cm) (432 cm x 22 designated seating positions). At least 3,801.6 cm (40 percent) of the total required area of unobstructed openings shall be provided on each side (i.e., the right side or left side) of a bus.

The following explains how the 9,504 cm is to be allocated among the right and left sides of the bus and the rear emergency exit.

Emergency exits on the right side of the bus You stated that there was only one door, opposite the drivers seat, for entrance and egress. If the front door meets Standard No. 217 emergency exit requirements, it can be considered an emergency exit. See June 30, 1988, letter to Mr. Terry K. Brock (copy enclosed): "As long as the front door meets all applicable requirements for emergency exits under Standard No. 217, the door can be considered as an emergency exit. " However, as specified in S5.2.2.1, regardless of its actual area, the front door cannot be credited with more than 3,458 cm of the total area requirement.

Subtracting the square centimeters of the front door (not to exceed 3,458 square centimeters) from 3,801.6 cm, the remainder (of the area representing the unobstructed openings for the right side emergency exit) may be allocated to a side exit such as a window. The combined unobstructed opening area for the front door and the right side emergency exit window must total at least 3,801.6 cm.

Emergency exits on the left side of the bus The combined unobstructed openings for emergency exits for the left side of the bus must also be at least 3,801.6 cm. The emergency exits may consist of a left side emergency door and an emergency exit window, or may consist of emergency exit windows only.

Rear emergency exits Although you did not ask about rear emergency exits, please note that the unobstructed opening for the rear emergency exit must total at least 1900.8 cm (9,504 cm (total unobstructed area) minus 3801.6 cm (right side) minus 3801.6 cm (left side)). S5.2.2.2 states that when the bus configuration precludes installation of an accessible rear exit (such as a rear exit door), a roof exit that meets the requirements of S5.3 through S5.5 when the bus is overturned on either side, with the occupant standing facing the exit, shall be provided in the rear half of the bus.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:217
d.5/6/03

ID: nht67-1.11

DATE: 08/25/67

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

TO: Honda of New York

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1967, to Mr. Donald H. Schwentker in which you request confirmation that the Japanese-made CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH compact trucks are multipurpose passenger vehicles under the new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

You state that the CONY line is primarily a line of commercial truck-type vehicles and that the Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are built on the same truck chassis as the purely commercial models.

A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in section 255.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation."

Therefore, the CONY Models AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH are multipurpose passenger vehicles, since they are designed to carry 10 persons or less and are constructed on a truck chassis.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

August 4, 1967

Donald M. Schwentker -- National Highway Safety Bureau, Federal Highway Administration

Dear Mr. Schwentker:

As you suggested in our recent telephone conversation, this is in the nature of a request to your office to confirm two models of the Japanese-made CONY brand of compact trucks which we import, as multi-purpose passenger cars, rather than as passenger cars, for the purpose of classifying them under the new national motor vehicle safety standards.

The basis of this request rests on the facts that (1) the CONY line is primarily a commercial truck type of vehicle and (2) the two models in question AF-11SVH and AF-7SVH, although providing for four persons, are convertable to exclusively cargo space (the rear seat folds down to the floor) and are built upon the same truck chassis as is employed for the purely commercial models.

I am herewith enclosing brochures describing the entire line of eight vehicles of the CONY brand (only two of which are expressly built for passenger-carrying) and have checked and marked the two models thereon.

Inspection of the drawings, photographs and specifications will show only the slightest differences existing among the eight models in size, design and performance and for all practical purposes, each model has a majority of the engineering characteristics of all the other models.

We would appreciate your earliest interpretation for the benefit of our manufacturer who must consider the necessary modifications for 1968 models.

May I also reiterate my appreciation for the information and advice you have already tendered.

Very truly yours,

John J. Paxton -- HONDA OF NEW YORK

ID: Yuen.1

Mr. Derek Yuen
Xtest, Inc.
16035 Caputo Drive, Suite A
Morgan Hill, CA 95037




Dear Mr. Yuen:

This responds to your recent e-mail to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you seek clarification regarding the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, pertaining to motorcycle headlamps. Specifically, you asked whether a motorcycle (or a three-wheeled vehicle with two wheels at the front) may be equipped with a four-headlamp system (with two lower beams and two upper beams), and if so, whether it would be permissible to place one set of lamps (either the lower beams or upper beams) closer to the outer edge of the vehicle, provided that the other two lamps are within 200 mm of each other. As discussed below, FMVSS No. 108 does not permit a motorcycle headlamp system composed of more than two headlamps, so we need not consider the additional issue of spacing of a second pair of headlamps.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. As an initial matter, you are correct in that the three-wheeled vehicle mentioned in your letter would be considered a "motorcycle" under our regulations. Under 49 CFR 571.3, "motorcycle" is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contract with the ground".

The requirements for motor vehicle lighting are contained in FMVSS No. 108, with the headlighting requirements for motorcycles set forth in S7.9, Motorcycles. In particular, paragraph S7.9.6 requires that a headlighting system be located on the front of the motorcycle and, most pertinent to your proposed design, be installed in accordance with the requirements of S7.9.6.2. The requirements of S7.9.6.2 are as follows:

(a) If the system consists of a single headlamp, it shall be mounted on the vertical centerline of the motorcycle.

(b)    If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline.

(c)     If the system consists of two headlamps, one of which provides an upper beam and one of which provides the lower beam, the headlamps shall be located on the vertical centerline with the upper beam no higher than the lower beam, or horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline and mounted at the same height.

Because the system your letter envisions consists of four headlamps, it would not meet the requirements of S7.9.6.2 of FMVSS No. 108. (We note further that the Japan Auto Parts Industries Association submitted a petition for rulemaking in 1998, which included a request to amend FMVSS No. 108 to allow four distinct headlamps on motorcycles, but the agency decided not to do so (see 69 FR 55993 (Sept. 17, 2004). ) Because such a system is not permitted under Standard No. 108, we need not analyze this system in terms of the motorcycle headlamp location requirements contained in paragraph S7.9.6 of the standard.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.1/4/06

ID: nht91-6.49

DATE: November 1, 1991 EST

FROM: Joe S. Brito -- President, Preferred Custom Concepts Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 01/07/92 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Joe S. Brito (A39; Std. 208)

TEXT:

This letter comes to you in hopes that you might be able to set many rumors to rest. We at Preferred Custom Concepts manufacture dash and door trim kits, overhead consoles, floor consoles as well as other accessories that are sold as aftermarket bolt-ons by custom shops or installed by people in the Truck and Van conversion industry.

The recent changes that have occured in the Truck and Van conversion industry regarding seats and seat belt restraints has also sparked rumors that this new laws will also regulate the use of wood in the interior of a converted vehicle.

We have yet to receive any official notification of any such changes nor have we seen or read any written material on this subject. Therefore, you can see our reason for this letter. Could you tell us, are there laws that are regulating the use of wood in custom interiors? If so what are these laws? Can you send me copy of any regulations that govern same? If not where might I be able to obtain a copy of these illusive documents.

We would greatly appreciate any and all help you may be able to offer us in solving this problem. Thank you.

ID: nht90-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 9, 1990

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: ROBERT A ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE, EAS

TITLE: NONE

TEXT:

This is in reply to your letter asking for confirmation that an interpretation of a notice of proposed rulemaking remains in effect with respect to the final rule based upon that proposal. I regret the delay in responding.

Specifically, you reference an interpretation dated September 12, 1988, that this office provided Koito Corporation, informing it that each of the two Vehicle Headlamp Aiming Device (VHAD) designs depicted "complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2" of Standa rd No. 108. The second design consisted of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. We informed Koito that under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for "the VHAD and head lamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD), and that this meant that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly or separate from it. However, we also cautioned that our comments were based upon the proposa l, and could change with the issuance of the final rule.

You have commented that the final rule was the same with respect to the pertinent VHAD wording. This is not entirely true. The final rule (paragraph S7.7.5.2(b)(vii)) omitted the parenthetical phrase "(if the headlamp is separable or intended to be use d ,with the VHAD). You also noted that paragraph S7.7.5.2(c)(1) of the final rule defines a headlamp assembly as "(the headlamp(s) and the integral or separate VHAD mechanism)". The intent of this language is to specify a VHAD that is a permanent part of the headlamp, and hence integral, or to have a separate VHAD that is part of the mounting mechanism. It was not meant as permitting a VHAD that could be physically separated from headlamp or the mounting mechanism. Thus, in our view and upon our fur ther consideration of the matter, a detachable VHAD does not meet the "intent" of the final rule.

This means that the spirit level design described in your letter, which is not integral to the headlamp or mounting mechanism, is not permissible. We shall provide Koito with a copy of this letter.

DATE: October 3, 1989

FROM: ROBERT A. ROGERS -- DIRECTOR, ASE

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

COPYEE: AUGUST BURGETT; BARRY FELRICE The purpose of this letter is to request that the NHTSA affirm a previous FMVSS 108 interpretation that it has issued. The interpretation involves the applicablity of vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD) requirements and is relevant to a design which G eneral Motors is considering.

BACKGROUND

On December 29, 1987, NHTSA published an NPRM (Dicket 85-15, Notice 5) which prrposed extensive revisions to FMVSS 108, including a provision to allow a VHAD.

In a letter dated April 8, 1988, Koito Manufacturing Company asked the agency for confirmation that two different VHAD designs that it was contemplating would comply with the proposed FMVSS 108 revisions. The second design described in the Koito lett er consists of a detachable spirit level that would be inserted in the bulb socket for the purpose of aiming the headlamp. Once the headlamp is aimed, the spirit level would be removed and the headlamp bulb would be reinstalled for normal operation. Th e key aspect of this design is that the VHAD is separate from, rather than integral to, the headlamp.

In responding to Koito on September 12, 1988, the agency stated:

"With respect to your two designs, you appear to have understood that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications. Under S7.7.5.2 it is the headlam p system that 'includes' a VHAD, rather than 'incorporates' it. Under subsection (b)(7) photometric testing is provided for 'The VHAD and headlamp assembly (if the headlamp is separable or intended to be used with the VHAD)...' This means that the VHAD may be integral with the headlamp assembly, or separate from it (though presumably provided with the vehicle as part of its original equipment), as fits the manufacturer's design. Each of your designs complies with the intent of S7.7.5.2; however, I must emphasize that this (Notice 5) is only a proposal, and the form of a final requirement, if any, has not been determined.

On May 9, 1989, the agency issued a Final Rule (docket 85-15, Notice 8) patterned after the Notice 5 NPRM. With respect to the pertinent VHAD wording, the Final Rule was the same as the NPRM, and the preamble left unchanged the position stated above.

GENERAL MOTORE DESIGN:

The Notice 5 NPRM and Notice 8 Final Rule were partially the result of GM's petitions to permit the use of our new 55 X 135 millimeter integral beam headlamp. This new headlamp (scheduled for introduction in the 1991 model year) has been reviewed on several occasions with agency personnel. During those reviews, we indicated that the 55 X 135 would employ a spirit level VHAD that is integral to the headlamp mounting assembly.

The integral VHAD design entails four spirit levels on each vehicle - one for each headlamp. However, we have recently developed an alternative spirit level VHAD for the 55 X 135 which is not integral to the headlamp assembly. By adopting the non-in tregral VHAD, we are able to provide a single spirit level with each vehicle. This results in a significant cost saving opportunity. The proposed non-intregral VHAD would be furnished with each vehicle equipped with 55 X 135 integral beam headlamps. Th e attached sketch illustrates the VHAD we are comtemplating. To vertically aim the headlamp, the three legs of the VHAD adaptor would be held to the headlamp aiming ring, as shown in the sketch. The vertical adjusting screw on the headlamp would then b e turned to obtain a zero reading of the spirit level, just as with the earlier integral VHAD design.

As mentioned, a move to this VHAD design represents a significant cost saving opportunity for purchasers of the 55 X 135 headlamp. The separate VHAD also serves equally well as the integral VHAD in meeting the needs of motor vehicle safety.

We have carefully reviewed the wording of S7.7 of FMVSS 108, and we believe it supports the use of the separate VHAD being considered for the 55 X 135. In particular, S7.7.5.2(c)(1) explicitly comprehends a VHAD design of the type GM is developing.

Like Koito, GM understands "...that the agency's intent in the proposal was to provide broad parameters for VHADs to afford manufacturers design freedom in meeting the specifications". We also believe that this intent is carried forward to the Final Rul e, since the pertinent wording was unchanged.

However, given that the agency emphasized that its September 12, 1988, comments were based on an NPRM only, we seek confirmation that the agency's interpretation of the actual standard is the same as the September 12 interpretation of the NRPM.

ID: 86-5.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S.P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. B.K. O'Neil

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 22, 1986, asking how our regulations affect a product you manufacture. Your letter and the literature you enclosed describe your product as a modified acrylic tinted shield which fits over the front end of a passenger car. According to the pictures you enclosed with your letter, your shield fits over the headlights of some vehicles, in others it apparently only covers the front turn signals. I regret the delay in our response. As discussed below, your product could be affected by two Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates other alleged safety-related defects.

The agency has issued Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance and marking requirements for glazing materials used in a vehicle. Auxillary wind deflectors are among the items of glazing materials covered by the standard. The agency has applied the standard to the type of wind deflector that is used at a location necessary for driving visibility. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that wind deflectors do not obstruct or distort the vision of a driver. Thus, for example, the agency has said in a letter of October 2, 1985, to Mr. Rosario Costanzo that the standard would apply to a wind deflector designed to be mounted in the side window of a vehicle. The literature you enclosed shows that your product, which is a type of plastic shield, is not mounted in a location necessary for driving visibility and thus would not be covered by Standard No. 205.

Installation of your product in a new vehicle prior to its first sale would be affected by Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment, which sets, among other things, minimum candle power requirements for headlamps and turn signals. In addition, paragraph S4.1.3 of the standard prohibits the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Furthermore Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J580, Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, which is incorporated by reference in paragraph S4.1.1.36 and Tables I and II of Standard No. 108, prohibits styling features in front of headlamps when the lamps have been activated. Thus, S4.1.3, S4.1.1.36, and Tables I and II prohibit the use of fixed transparent headlamp covers as original equipment on motor vehicles. Part 567, Certification, of our regulations provides that a person that alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable safety standards. Thus, an alterer could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If a version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the alterer must certify that the vehicle lights will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Persons violating the certification requirement are subject to a civil fine of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would be affected by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly tampering with devices or elements of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Thus, a commercial business could not install a version of your product which covers the headlamps of a vehicle. If the version of your product covers the turn signal or any other required lighting device, the business must assure that the vehicle lamps will still comply with Standard No. 108 with your product in place. Commercial businesses that violate section 108(a)(2)(A) are subject to a civil penalty of $ 1,000 per violation.

The prohibition of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who may install or remove any items of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to remove or otherwise tamper with vehicle safety equipment. Also, any modifications made by a vehicle owner would have to comply with applicable state law.

In addition, you as a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Vehicle Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet which outlines those requirements.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ENC.

January 22, 1986

Department of Transportation

Attn: Erika Jones Chief Counsel

Dear Ms. Jones:

I have been in contact with Mr. Ed Glassie of your department, and he suggested we contact you for clarification on our product.

AUTOBRA I manufactures a modified acrylic (Plexiglas DR(R)) auto bra, as per the enclosed literature.

I would like to find out if we are approved by D.O.T., or in fact, our product would need approval under your guidelines.

Please peruse our literature and samples, and advise me of your comments.

AUTOBRA I, INC.

B.K. O'Neill Vice President/Marketing

ENC.

P.S. Although there are presently four or five other manufacturers of auto bras in America right now, we are unfamiliar with their position as to D.O.T. compliance. The only difference between us is the type of plastic used.

(Graphics omitted)

Autobra shield has been designed to provide the following innovative features not available with most front end protection: STYLING Autobra shield's aerodynamic styling actually enhances your automobile's appearance.

MOUNTING Mounting Autobra shield is fast and secure without modification to your automobile.

ACCESS Autobra shield provides easy access to your hood or bonnet without total removal of the shield.

PROTECTION Autobra shield's solid acrylic construction provides maximum protection to your automobile from stones, bugs and other flying debris.

SAFETY Abrasion, mildew and damage to body finish of the covered area are eliminated because Autobra shield mounts away from the surface of the automobile.

MAINTENANCE Autobra shield wipes clean with soap and water providing easy maintenance.

Autobra shield's acrylic construction is resistant to the WEATHER elements; RESISTANCE consequently removal of the shield in inclement weather is virtually eliminated.

Autobra shield is available in light tint acrylic for Porsche 911, 930; BMW 318/325, 320; Toyota Celica, Tercel, Pick-Up; Fiero; Corvette; Mustang GT, and other select automobiles.

2177 Andrea Lane Ft. Myers, FL 33908 Florida (813) 482-5603 Toll Free 1-800-445-2886

Dealer inquiries welcomed

ID: nht75-5.48

DATE: 07/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Sheller-Globe's June 16, 1975, request for a statement of the requirements for 1976-model multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) specified by Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

Section S4.3 of the standard sets out the requirements for MPV's with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) or more than 10,000 pounds. These requirements are the same in the future as at present.

Section S4.2 sets out the requirements for MPV's with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.2.1 for vehicles until August 15, 1975, and S4.2.2 for vehicles on or after August 15, 1975 until August 15, 1977). As the standard is presently effective, S4.2.2 will require that most MPV's of 10,000 pounds or less be equipped with the same seat belts and warning systems as presently installed in passenger cars. I have enclosed a copy of those requirements as they were revised October 29, 1974 (40 FR 38380, October 31, 1974). Also enclosed is a Federal Register notice of December 6, 1974, that sets out the associated warning system requirements (40 FR 42692, December 6, 1974). The only MPV's excepted from these requirements are forward control vehicles, convertibles, open-body type vehicles, walk-in van-type trucks, motor homes, and vehicles carrying chassis-mount campers. They will continue to be required to meet the requirements of S4.2.1.2 as presently in effect.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently proposed that a manufacturer have the option of meeting the requirements of S4.2.1 or S4.2.2 until January 1, 1976. I enclose a copy of that proposal, which includes a preamble discussion of the reasons for this proposal. A final determination will appear in the Federal Register.

Sincerely,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

June 16, 1975

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

Attention: Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel

Reference: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection

There have been so many changes in the referenced safety standard that it is quite possible for an individual to misinterpret its requirements applicable to a motor vehicle.

As you know, Sheller-Globe Corporation manufacturers School Buses, Motor Homes (Recreational Vehicles) and Professional Vehicles (Funeral Coaches and Ambulances). All of these motor vehicles, except School Buses, fall under the definition of Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles.

The manufacturing divisions of Sheller-Globe Corporation have requested of me direction pertinent to how they are required to comply to safety standard 208 for 1976 model year Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles (M.P.V.'s).

The requirement for certain types of M.P.V.'s after December 31, 1975 was what was specified for passenger cars from September 1, 1973 to August 14, 1975 (Paragraph S4.1.2). However, the requirements of that paragraph have been revised or are proposed for revision.

Could you please direct myself and Sheller-Globe Corporation pertinent to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 - Occupant Crash Protection as it will apply to Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles for model year 1976?

Your direction in this matter would be deeply appreciated.

George R. Semark - Manager Vehicle Safety Activities