ID: nht71-5.44

DATE: 09/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 16 and September 1971, regarding the computation of the severity index under Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay in replying.

Your question is whether the severity index for an acceleration time history with two(Illegible Word), one caused by initial impact and the other caused by rebound, is computed on the basis of both peaks. Our reply is that both peaks must be used, even though the accelerations may be in opposite directions and separated by a measurable interval. The severity index computation is based on the entire event from onset of acceleration until the end of motion.

SINCERELY

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

September 14, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Our letter to you dated June 16, 1971.

On June 16, 1971, I wrote a letter to you requesting clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

To date, I have not received your reply.

As we have developed a passive restraint system to meet Standard 208, your clarification is quite necessary for the evaluation of our own system.

I would very much appreciate your reply as soon as possible.

K. Nakajima Director/General Manager

attachment

June 16, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to request clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 -- Occupant Crash Protection.

Figure 1 (attached) is an example of head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in a front passenger seat which were recorded during a 30 mph barrier crash test for the evaluation purpose of passive restraint systems. These time histories indicate two acceleration peaks. The first peak occurs when the device in a passenger seat is restrained at the time of impact to the barrier by a passive restraint system which is installed in the front of the device. About 0.1 seconds after the first impact, the second peak follows when the device rebounds to strike the front seat back.

The Severity Index is calculated at 840 for the first impact to the front restraint system and calculated at 343 for the second impact to the front seat back. Therefore, the Severity Index of these two combined impacts is 1183.

Several questions on obtaining the Severity Index have arisen from the two impacts. We interpret these two

P2 impacts to be independent phenomena from each other because of the following reasons:

a. The impact areas on the vehicle's interior are different between the first and second impact.

b. The directions of the acceleration of the device are opposite, and the impact areas of the device are different. The first impact is to the front of the head, and the second impact is to the rear of the head.

c. A zero acceleration period is observed between the first impact and the second impact.

d. The time interval of these two peaks is about 0.1 seconds which seems to be enough time for the human brain to recover from the effect of the first impact.

Therefore, we believe that the evaluation of the Severity Index on the acceleration time histories should be done separately and should not be added together. In other words, the restraint system, the performance of which is shown in Figure 1, meets the requirement of Section 6.2. Is our interpretation correct?

Also, please advise us of the minimum time interval of these two impacts or the other bases of judgement which can be evaluated separately.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated.

K. Nakajima General Manager

Attachment

The first head impact to a passive restraint system. S.I. = 840

The second head impact to the front seat back.

S.I. = 343

Longitudinal accel.

Transverse accel.

Vertical accel.

Figure 1. Head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in the front passenger seat at 30 mph barrier impact.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-4.28

DATE: 06/26/73

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

TO: Peterbilt Motor Truck Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 22, 1973, in which you state you are a distributor of Peterbilt trucks and ask whether certain operations you perform subject you to Federal requirements. These operations are modifications to air brake systems and the installation of used bodies on new truck chassis.

A company whose business includes the installation of used bodies on new truck chassis is a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and, as such, has certain responsibilities under the Act and regulations issued by this agency. In response to your question regarding registration, you are required pursuant to NHTSA "Manufacturers' Identification" regulations (49 CFR Part 566) to submit to the agency information regarding the manufacturing operations of your company and the types of vehicles that it manufactures.

A manufacturer is also required, pursuant to NHTSA "Certification" regulations (49 CFR Part 567, 568) to ascertain and certify the conformity of each vehicle he manufacturers to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Under these regulations the person who completes the vehicles (the "final-stage manufacturer") is required to affix to the vehicle a label that contains the certification that the vehicle conforms to applicable standards, as well as other information. Our experience has been that most manufacturers who install truck bodies onto new chassis are final-stage manufacturers, who must affix this label. Persons whose manufacturing operations precede that of the final-stage manufacturer are required to provide documentation with the vehicle that indicates what steps will be necessary in order to bring the vehicle into conformity with applicable standards.

You also ask if there are requirements for the making of periodic reports. NHTSA "Defect Reports" regulations (49 CFR @ 573.5(b)) do require manufacturers to furnish the NHTSA with quarterly production figures.

The other operation you describe is the modification of vehicle air brake systems, including changes in valves, lines, spring brakes, air tanks, etc. If you merely modify an existing air brake system, there are presently no certification or reporting requirements applicable to you. The NHTSA has just issued certification requirements for persons who alter completed vehicles, and depending on the extent of the modification you perform, these requirements may apply to you. They are effective February 1, 1974. All trucks manufactured after September 1, 1974, that are manufactured with air brakes will be required to conform to requirements specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. The law would not allow you to modify the air brake system of any truck manufactured on or after that date, before the sale of the truck to a purchaser for a purpose other than resale (a user), if the modification you performed would cause the vehicle to no longer comply with the standard.

I have only summarized the requirements that, based on the facts you have provided, would be applicable to you. Your responsibilities are stated specifically in the regulations we have referred to, and you may obtain copies of these requirements as indicated on the enclosed, "Where to Obtain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations."

ENC.

May 22, 1973

Mr. Larry Schneider, Chief Counsel NHTSA

We are distributors of Peterbilt trucks and, in addition to the sales and services of Peterbilt trucks, we operate a service and repair shop which, in addition to the repair of used trucks, we intend to perform, occasionally, the following services both on new Peterbilts that we sell and other makes of new trucks sold by other dealers.

1) Modifications to air brake systems including, but not limited to, changes in valves, lines, spring brakes, air tanks, etc. $2) Removal of bodies from used trucks and installation of these bodies on new chassis.

Services described in 1) and 2) above are done on order to us from the owners of vehicles involved.

Can you advise us regarding our responibilities in the following areas.

a) Are we required to register? If yes, how do we do this?

b) Are we required to make periodic reports? If so, to whom and when?

c) Are we required to "certify" what we do? If so, how, when, to whom, etc.?

Thank you for your assistance.

ENGS MOTOR TRUCK CO.

R. W. Harvey

ID: nht73-4.6

DATE: 04/10/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Independent Tire Dealer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 26, 1973, requesting our view of your booklet on Standard No. 117. We have the following comments.

On page 2, under the heading, "Does a Retread Have to Pass All These Tests", you refer to a lack of availability of test wheels. On page 3, under the heading, "How Expensive Could Testing Get?", you quote figures of $ 250.00 to $ 400.00. As you know, the standard no longer includes the high speed and endurance tests, and while there are other laboratory tests involved in testing strength and bead unseating, neither includes the use of the laboratory test wheel. Consequently, insofar as your statements may take into account laboratory wheel tests, they should be modified.

On page 3, under the heading, "What if One Certified Doesn't Comply?", you state, "If the tire was not produced with due care then you will have both a recall and the probability of a penalty being assessed." Notification of defects to first purchasers however, is not contingent upon a showing of due care, and must be made even if a manufacturer used due care. Whether a manufacturer exercises due care is relevant only to whether he is in violation of the Act, and to civil penalties, but not to defect notification (recall). The reason is that a retreader's exercise of due care doesn't change the fact that potentially unsafe tires will be used unless their owners are notified.

On page 4, under the heading, "Must You Submit Information On Defects and Failures?": Under section 113(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (as amended in 1970), each retreader must furnish NHTSA with a true and representative copy of all notices, bulletins, or other communications sent either to dealers or purchasers with regard to any defect in his tires. This requirement applies to all defects, and you should review it. It is incorrect to say that retreaders are not required to submit information regarding defects to NHTSA.

On page 4, under "What Casing Controls are Required?", you indicate that no tire may be retreaded which has exposed ply cord. However, the standard allows ply cord to be exposed at a splice (S5.2.1(b)). While you make this point later, on page 5, the way in which you do so seems more to contradict than clarify your earlier statement. We suggest you indicate that ply cord may be exposed at a splice in the earlier paragraph as well. The same thing can be said for the next section on page 4, "May Tires With Exposed Ply Cord be Retreaded?". This section is also completely silent on the exception for ply cord at a splice, and should also be modified.

On page 4, under the heading, "What are Restrictions on Good Casings?", you omit certain requirements. Casings without a symbol DOT that are to be retreaded must only be of those size designations specified in the table at the end of the standard. These casings must also have permanently labeled on them the size, and number of plies or ply rating. Both of these information items and the symbol "DOT" must also be permanently labeled on each DOT casing that is to be retreaded.

On page 5, under the heading, "Should We Use Affixed Labels or Permanent Molding On Tire?", the minimum size for permanent labeling under S6.3.2 has been changed to 0.078 inches. This change does not, however, affect affixed labels.

On page 6, under the heading, "Is Any Provision Made For Sizing Difference in Retreads?", you state a retread may be 10% over new tire physical and dimension requirements. The 10% allowance for section width is to be calculated on the section width specified in the Tables of Standard No. 109, for the tire size designation. New tires are allowed to exceed this figure by 7%. Consequently, retreads can exceed the new tire requirement by only 3%(Illegible Word) of the table figure). To say they can exceed the new tire requirement by 10% may mislead some persons into thinking they can exceed the value in the table by 17% which, of course, is not correct.

Apart from these points, your booklet appears to us to be essentially correct. It should prove helpful to retreaders.

ID: nht73-5.18

DATE: 03/29/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Mr. R. W. Lillie

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of January 30, 1973 and our sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your letter.

There are no Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to plastic fuel tanks. Standard No. 301, which includes the fuel tank in the(Illegible Word) performance requirements of the vehicle, makes no reference to the construction or design details of the fuel tank. A booklet briefly describing the issued standards is enclosed.

The Department of Transportation does not routinely receive and test fuel tanks of the various manufacturers; however, the Department keeps abreast of technical advancements of these companies through technical society meetings and trade journals. It has been brought to our attention that Dow Chemical Company has done considerable work with high density polyethylene fuel tanks and offers an internal treatment of these tanks which is claimed to reduce considerably the permeation of gasoline through the walls. Further information may be obtained from the following source:

Dow Chemical U.S.A. Plastics Department Midland, Michigan 48640

Standard No. 116 is applicable to Hydraulic Brake Fluids and is included in the consolidated edition of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations, as per the enclosed order form.

2

The physical characteristics and labeling requirements of brake fluids, including silicones, are included in this standard, a copy of which is enclosed for your information. Your inquiry concerning the use of silicones in automobiles can best be answered by the Original Equipment Manufacturers or the automotive companies. The interest of the Department in materials is primarily performance rather than design considerations, for example, an(Illegible Word) material could be silicone, neoprene or ether(Illegible Word) as long as the standards are complied with.

The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety has issued standards that are applicable to commerical vehicles engaged in interstate commerce, and some of these standards apply to fuel tanks. A portion of these regulations that pertains to fuel tanks is also enclosed for your information, along with an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making that concerns plastic fuel tanks (F. R, Vol. 36, No. 178, September 14, 1971). Additional information is available from the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh Street, S. W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

5 ENCLS.

R. W. LILLIE & COMPANY

January 30, 1973

United States Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Your reply doesn't answer our questions. How do we get those which are not in NHTSA standards?

Very truly yours,

R. W. Lillie

(Illegible Word)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

In reply refer to N48-51

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. The standards are not available from the NHTSA, but may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents on a subscription basis. An order form is enclosed for your convenience.

R. W. LILLIE & COMPANY

December 8, 1972

United States Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We are aware that certain efforts have been underway aimed at the use of plastic fuel tanks for autos. We would like to know the status of these developments, and since we are sure DOT is involved in testing and/or approval procedures, we would appreciate any reports you can send us on this subject: Such matters as the following would be of interest, as well as any othermatters influencing the ultimate use of these tanks:

1. Tests that must be met to receive DOT approval

2. Results of tests on any tanks already submitted

3. Indications of which polymers may be suitable

4. Other interesting information.

We would also like to receive a copy of the NHTSA Regulation concerning the use of brake fluids for automobiles. We are also looking for any other information you may have on the use of silicones in automobiles.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Very truly yours,

R. W. Lillie

ID: nht90-1.4

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/90 EST

FROM: Stephen W.A. Pickering -- Valley Sales Inc.

TO: Stephen R. Kratzke -- Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel for Rulemaking, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to 5 photos (graphics omitted); Also attached to Report on Test of Sofa Bar according to FMVSS No. 210 (text and graphics omitted); Also attached to Test Report Number 096441-89 (text and graphics omitted) (test results are available i n the file); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to S. Pickering (A36; Std. 111, Std. 202, Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT:

Per our conversation by telephone please find enclosed photographs, drawings, descriptions, and accompanying data that I have available at this time concerning the product I am making, trade named "RUMBLE SEAT". The product is a rear facing auxilary seat ing system for Pick up trucks.

It is a unique product that I have initiated a patent application on and a product which I have designed to be as safe and comfortable as I can.

It is my wish to be in compliance with any applicable codes and standards that I am now aware of or those I become aware of at a later date.

I have used for reference the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 49 containing National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Standards.

I have listed those standards that I feel may apply to my product, and those I feel I am in compliance with, Or at least those I feel I am NOT out of compliance with.

CODE 49-Standard 209 "Seat belt Assemblies"

I believe I am in compliance by the "DEFINITIONS" S3 by using a Type 1 seatbelt assembly a "LAP BELT FOR PELVIC RESTRAINT" please see enclosed test data on the seatbelts I am now using.

CODE 49 Standard 210 "Seatbelt Assembly Anchorages"

I have enclosed pictures, drawings, and test result data for you to determine compliance, I feel I comply here also.

CODE 49 Standard 571.208 "Occupant Crash Protection"

S4.1.1.3.2. "Convertibles and open body type vehicles" provides that either Type 1 or Type 2 seatbelt assemblys may be used. I am using a Type 1 belt assembly Manual Seatbelts, again, please find test data.

CODE 49 Standard S571.111 "REARVIEW MIRRORS"

My product provides seating for 2 (two) people with space between each

seat to help minimize interference with drivers "FIELD OF VIEW" When the seats are un-occupied with the headrests down there is very minimal interference with view and does not compromise, my compliance status at all.

CODE 49 Standard 571.202 "HEAD RESTRAINTS"

I feel I need HELP with interpertation and compliance here.

Because my product sets directly behind the cab, facing the rear of the pick-up bed, any adult would find the back of the head in close proximity to the outside rear of the cab.

It seemed prudent, therefore, to offer some sort of protection

While there may be several ways to attempt to accomplish this I need to settle on one that will be in compliance with the codes and standards of your bureau.

One way would be a stationary headrest in corporated in the product.

Another may be a stationary headrest permanently affixed to the cab.

Another may be an ADJUSTABLE headrest permanently affixed to the cab.

Another may be a removable headrest either on the product itself, or on the cab. (I WOULD FAVOR THIS SYSTEM)

I decided an adjustable headrest incorporated into the product would be the best way to proceed.

There is one other choice that I have considered, and I am in the opinion that I may have an easier time with compliance. I briefly describe the other system in the enclosed explaination and drawing.

I am asking you to comment as to the possibility of compliance of each system described I have outlined here.

Thank you for your consideration and I hope to be in contact with you regarding my progress in complying with any applicable standards. ANY additional suggestions you may have would be helpfull.

enclosed:

1. test results of seatbelt systems from United States Testing Co. 2. Test results for seatbelt bar anchorage system from Stoutco. 3. Photographs and drawings of product seeking compliance. 4. Possible alternate headrest mounting systems. explaination a nd drawings.

(Photos and text are omitted but are available in the file.)

ID: Robert Linton drn

ID: 1982-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/09/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: G & C Mills Plastics Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether an auxiliary wind deflector which you sell must have a "safety label." Also, you ask whether you should send one of your products to the agency in order to obtain official approval.

The answer to your first question is yes. Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides that no person shall

"(A) manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard . . ."

"(C) fail to issue a certificate required by section 114, or issue a certificate to the effect that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, if such person in the exercise of due care has reason to know that such certificate is false or misleading in a material respect."

Since your auxiliary wind deflector is a piece of motor vehicle equipment and is subject to Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, you are required by section 108 to certify that it complies with that standard. As noted on page 2 of our October 8, 1980 letter to Mr. Hingtgen (which you received), section 114 of the Vehicle Safety Act requires the manufacturer or distributor to place a label or tag on the item of equipment or on the outside container in which the equipment is delivered. This label or tag must state (i.e., certify) that the item of equipment complies with all applicable safety standards, in this case Standard No. 205. You are correct in your assumption that you print this label or tag yourself. The agency does not provide the labels.

In answer to your second question, you should not send a sample of your product to the agency for approval. The agency does not grant prior approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. As you can see from section 108 quoted above, the Vehicle Safety Act requires self-certification by the manufacturer that its product is in compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency's enforcement program begins only after the manufacturer has certified its product (i.e., the agency may obtain an item of equipment or vehicle from the open market and determine whether it is in fact in compliance with all standards).

I hope this has answered all remaining questions you might have.

SINCERELY, G. & C. Mills Plastics Inc.

December 19, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Re 'Colorado' Weathershield

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Your letter of November 30th has just arrived on my desk. Please note that we have moved our office from Los Angeles to Toronto.

Please also be assured that we are most anxious to comply with whatever Highway Traffic Safety Administration standards apply to our product. Cut weathershield fits to the door frame of automobiles or small trucks with clips - no screws or body holes are required. The window can be wound up or down completely - the weathershield does not alter this function. Also our weathershield is made of clear acrylic plastic about 1/8" thick with a very slight non-glare tint to it. It washes clean with ordinary soap and water.

The article is manufactured in Sydney, Australia by a large manufacturer of all kinds of plastic items - refrigerator interiors and linings - light fixtures etc, etc. We import the item complete, in bulk - we just carton it individually.

The weathershield presently sells all over the world, Australia (for the past 20 years), also Europe, Japan, Canada and the Caribean, and my source in Australia informs me that there has never ever been a problem regarding the safety of this product.

I have read through the text of Standard No. 205, and your 2 letters dated Sept 8 and Oct 8th to Mr. Hingtgen, which you were kind enough to send me and from what I can see, our product complies satisfactorily, but for 'Safety Standards' Label.

However, I wonder if I should be the judge of this fact or should I not be sending a sample to your department for study and more official approval. I have enclosed a copy of our brochure which explains in more detail the nature of our product.

Please advise what further action you wish me to take and be assured of my fullest co-operation.

I. J. A. Mills

P.S. Would you please confirm that we do require the Safety Standards label as mentioned and do we print this ourselves?

ID: 1982-1.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pennsylvania Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of November 16, 1981, concerning differences between the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission (VESC) Regulation on sun screening devices and applicable Federal standards. In addition, you asked about the requirements of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards and how they affect Pennsylvania vehicle inspection standards.

Your first question concerns any differences in light transmittance requirements between the Federal standard and the 70 percent light transmittance requirement set by VESC in its Regulation No. 20, Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Sun Screening Devices. We have issued a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. The standard sets a minimum light transmittance level of 70 percent for glazing materials used in areas requisite for driving visibility, such as the windshield and front side windows.

As explained in the enclosed letter, the agency does not consider sun screening solar films to be glazing materials themselves and thus they would not have to comply with Standard No. 205. However, as the enclosed letter explains, use of such devices on motor vehicles would be prohibited in certain cases if the vehicle glazing no longer complies with the light transmittance or other requirements of the standard.

You also asked if bumper height is regulated by a Federal standard. The agency has issued, under the authority of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), a Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR Part 581, copy enclosed) that specifies performance requirements for bumper systems. One aspect of performance regulated by the standard is the impact protection provided by the bumper at certain heights.

Section 110 of the Cost Savings Act (15 U.S.C. 1920) provides, in applicable part, that:

No State or political subdivision thereof shall have any authority to establish or enforce with respect to any passenger motor vehicle or passenger motor vehicle equipment offered for sale any bumper standard which is not identical to a Federal bumper standard.

Section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides, in applicable part, that:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

Therefore, unless the Pennsylvania regulation is identical to the Part 581 Bumper Standard, it is preempted.

Finally, you asked about Federal safety standards regulating the height of the windshield. The agency has not issued any safety standard specifying requirements for the vertical height of the windshield. Therefore, Pennsylvania's inspection standard on vertical windshield height is not preempted.

ENCLS.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BUREAU OF TRAFFIC SAFETY OPERATIONS

November 16, 1981

Frank Berndt

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is presently in the process of reviewing its current inspection regulations to determine the validity of present equipment requirements or their present exclusion. If you could assist by responding to the two issues which follow, it would be greatly appreciated.

Our first concern is the validity of the VESC regulation regarding motor vehicle sun-screening (VESC Stand 20, approved July 1980), and any distinction from the National level between tinting by the original manufacturer and after market applications. Our specific concern is the 70 percent transmittance level set by VESC. Please refer to the enclosed copy of VESC 20.

The second issue in which we are interested and which, under certain circumstances is controlled by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, is bumper and windshield heights on newly manufactured reproductions of old cars. Our present regulations specify a bumper height of 16"-20", and a vertical windshield height of no less than 12". Please see the enclosed information concerning a 1950 Porsche reproduction.

Any information you could supply on these two matters would be very helpful to this Department in determining what standards to set, so as to insure minimum compliance with any Federal requirements. If you have any additional questions, please contact me.

Kathy G. Phillips, Manager Vehicle Safety Division

ID: 1982-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kastar Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry Epstein Kastar, Inc. Station Road at Sunrise Highway Bellport, New York 11713

Dear Mr. Epstein:

This responds to your letter of October 1, 1982 (and letter of August 31, 1982) requesting information concerning the Federal requirements applicable to auxiliary wind deflectors for passenger car doors. Your letter states that Mr. Kevin Cavey of this agency indicated that plastic wind deflectors do "not have to meet any government regulations."

We apologize, but the information given to you by Mr.Cavey was incorrect. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The wind deflectors you plan to manufacture are pieces of motor vehicle equipment, and they are subject to Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (copy enclosed).

Incorporating by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standard's Safety Code for Glazing Materials, Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. Under the requirements of this standard, an auxiliary wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at levels requisite for driving ability may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials, depending upon its proposed location on the vehicle (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard). The acrylic plastic material you propose to use is probably an Item 4 glazing, which may be used as a wind deflector placed on the side window of a vehicle. An AS-4 glazing material must meet Test No. 2, "Luminous Transmittance," which requires that the material "show regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent irradiation." You will have to make the determination whether your material in fact qualifies as an Item 4 material, or any of the other Item numbers mentioned above.

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraphs S6.1-S6.3. While not explicitly stated in your letter, it appears that you do not manufacture the glazing to be used in your deflector, but instead purchase it from a prime glazing manufacturer and then cut it yourself. If this assumption is correct, then the certification and marking requirements applicable to you are set out in Paragraph S6.4 and S6.5. By reference to section 6 of ANS Z26, you are required under this paragraph to mark any section of glazing that you cut with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was taken. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to those found on the acrylic sheets you purchased. Each item must also be certified pursuant to Section 114 of the Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Safety Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle equipment such as wind deflectors must comply with applicable safety standards prior to its first purchase by someone for purposes other than resale. The manufacture or installation of a wind deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under Section 151 et. seq., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Again, Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any more questions. (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Don Vesco Products Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 15, 1982, asking about the legality of "covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover."

You reported that manufacturers of motorcycles and fairings are producing such covers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration views this practice as prohibited and will take appropriate steps to make it views known. The legal authority for this is based upon a requirement of the SAE incorporated by reference in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 or, alternatively, paragraph S4.1.3 of that standard.

SAE Standard J580 (both a and b versions), Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly, is incorporated by reference in Tables I and III of Standard No. 108 as one of the standards pertaining to headlamps for use on passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multi-purpose passenger vehicles. A paragraph in each version states that, "When in use, a headlamp shall not have any styling ornament or other feature, such as a glass cover or grill, in front of the lens." SAE J580a applies to all sealed beam headlamps, while the scope of J580b is considerably narrower, including only those not covered by SAE J579c.

The principal referenced SAE material for motorcycle headlamps is J584a Motorcycle Headlamps. As options, both J584 and S4.1.1.34 of Standard No. 108 allow, in effect, a motorcycle to be equipped with one half of any sealed beam system permissible on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 forbids the installation of additional equipment "that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required" by Standard No. 108. Because of moisture accumulation, discoloration, cracks, etc., a glass or plastic cover might tend over a period of time to diminish or distort the headlamp beam. This is of particular concern with reference to the unsealed headlamps implicitly permitted by SAE J584 because of the tendency of the reflector to deteriorate with age.

For the reasons stated above, the agency has concluded that no headlamp may have a glass or plastic shield in front of it when in use, regardless of the type of vehicle on which it is used.

As for the turn signals, no part of the vehicle may impair their visibility through horizontal angles 45 degrees to the right and left of the vehicle (for right and left turn signals respectively) measured at the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. An unobstructed illuminated area of outer lens surface of at least 2 square inches excluding reflex is necessary to meet this requirement. You will have to judge for yourself whether the turn signal requirements are met with your planned cover in place.

If you have any further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

DON VESCO PRODUCTS, INC.,

September 15, 1982

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

To whom it may concern;

We are a small manufacturing firm and we produce various motorcycle products. Our main product at this time is a motorcycle fairing as shown in the photo on this letterhead. I am in the redesign stage of this fairing and would like to produce a product with flush fitting turn signals and possibly a covered headlight. I cannot find any D.O.T. specifications on the covering of a headlamp on a motorcycle with a clear cover. Many motorcycle accessory companies are producing fairings with this feature and, at least two motorcycle manufacturing companies are producing motorcycles with this feature. I have enclosed a number of copies showing the headlamp coverings as now produced.

What I want to know is what specifications are required to add this feature, or, is there simply nothing stating that such a feature is permissible?

I also would like to know what specifications will be required to add a clear covering over normal D.O.T. approved turnsignals. I can find no ruling that in any way prohibits or even mentions any clear covering that does not interfere with the operating of the lamp or the visability. We have limited funds and cannot afford to tool up for a special flush fitting turnsignal. However, our experiments have added up to a 23% increase in fuel economy on our test motorcycle using the new design and we feel that the commuter can use any gain possible. A 23% increase in fuel economy with no mechanical changes and only aerodynamic improvements is significant.

Time is of the essense. We must have some information on this within the next 4 weeks. Thank you for your cooperation.

Matt Guzzetta, Vice-President