ID: nht74-2.28

DATE: 01/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dow Chemical Europe, S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1974, concerning motor vehicle brake fluid certification.

The answer to your first two questions is no. The answer to your third question is also no, since the report of the independent testing laboratory covers only the fluid actually tested and bears no necessary relationship to a manufacturer's quality control program and the necessity to assure continuing compliance with Standard No. 116.

The answer to the fourth question is yes - the manufacturer must satisfy himself of continuing compliance and, when necessary, provide data to the NHTSA in substantiation of his certification.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

DOW CHEMICAL EUROPE S.A.

The Director -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Ref: MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID CERTIFICATION

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you for clarification on a point which is, alas, still causing some confusion here in Europe.

As you can see from the attachment, I wrote to the SAE in 1969 and my letter to them was forwarded to Dr. Robert Brenner for the DOT position. Unfortunately I never received a reply.

May I therefore repeat my enquiry:

1. Does the DOT/NHTSA issue certificates of compliance of brake fluid with the current Federal Regulations (FMVSS116, March 1972)?

assuming not:

2. Does the DOT/NHTSA officially recognise certain laboratories as being capable of testing to the requirements of the current Federal Regulations?

assuming not:

3. Is the DOT/NHTSA satisfied when the manufacturer of brake fluid obtains a test certificate from an independent testing laboratory, showing compliance of its product with current Federal Regulations?

assuming not:

4. Does the DOT/NHTSA simply place the onus on the manufacturer to satisfy himself and, when necessary, to prove that his product complies with current Federal regulations?

Furthermore, I should appreciate guidance on the following:

Previous to the issuance of Federal Regulations, most of the individual States had their own regulations pertaining to brake fluid. After the issuance of Federal Regulations, can it be assumed that no State Authority may take action against a supplier/manufacturer/trader of brake fluid not complying with that particular State's regulations, but complying fully with the Federal regulations?

In other words, may a State legally enforce requirements which are different, more stringent etc. than the Federal regulations?

I should like to thank you in advance for your trouble and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Technical Service & Development

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

December 23, 1969

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Development and Services, Dow Chemical Europe S.A.

Dear Mr. Abbott:

This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1969 regarding brake fluid certification.

As noted in your letter, the practice in the United States is that laboratories certify to the manufacturers that their fluids meet either SAE or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There is no control over the laboratories by SAE or the Federal Government. The competence of the laboratories is determined by the industry and those who use the laboratories specifically.

The policy which has been and will continue to be followed by SAE is to produce the best standards available and not to be involved in the deterimation of compliance to these standards. Since all SAE standards are for voluntary use by both industry and government, it would not be practical for us to do otherwise.

We cannot speak for the Department of Transportation which to the best of my knowledge does not at the present time have any plans to determine the adequacy of independent laboratories. I am referring your letter to Dr. Robert Brenner, Deputy Director, National Highway Safety Bureau (DOT) so that he can provide you with an official position regarding the Federal Government in this matter.

If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

Very truly yours,

Henry Martin -- Research Manager

cc: Robert Brenner

DOW CHEMICAL EUROPE S.A.

Society of Automotive Engineers

Attn. Hank Martin, permanent secretary, Brake Fluid Committ

Dear Mr. Martin,

As you are probably aware from certain questions raised at recent SAE Brake Fluid Committee meetings by personnel from Dow Chemical Company, Midland, we in Europe are at present experiencing some difficulty in establishing, for a large potential customer with a significant export business to the United States, the exact legal situation and also procedure required for a brake fluid to be considered legal within the United States.

At present, as I understand the situation and please correct me if I am wrong, a brake fluid is legal in the United States if it complies with the Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 116 which, in turn, states that fluids complying with SAE J 7OR1, R3 (and presumably J 1703 and J 1703a) automatically comply with Regulation 116.

The big question now is: who is to determine whether a brake fluid complies with SAE specifications. In the United States, the practice is, I am informed, for the manufacturer to submit the fluid in question to a so-called independent testing institute for examination against SAE specifications. Examples of such institutes would be Foster O. Snell, Electrical Testing, South-Western Research etc. and they would, as a disinterested party between manufacturer and buyer, issue a notarised certificate stating whether the fluid did or did not fulfil SAE specifications.

The point recently raised by our customer, however, was that does the Department of Transportation or the SAE, whose specification constitutes Standard 116, have any control or check on these independent laboratories, also does any official D.O.T. or SAE approval exist which would then certify these laboratories as being approved testing institutes capable of testing brake fluids completely against the legal mimimum requirements.

Consequently, I am asking you to kindly state for me the official SAE standpoint in this matter.

My since thanks in advance for your trouble.

Yours faithfully,

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Development and Service

ID: nht74-2.29

DATE: 05/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Robert E. Langdon III

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1974, asking whether retreaded tires are required by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 to have either a ribbed tread pattern or treadwear indicators.

Standard No. 117 does not have requirements for tread pattern design, and thus retreaded tires need not have a ribbed tread design. Each retreaded tire must, however, in accordance with S5.1.1(b) of Standard No. 117, incorporate a treadwear indicator that will provide a visual indication that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1/16 inch.

YOURS TRULY,

April 12, 1974

Office of the Chief Counsel -- Attn: Lawrence Schneider, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Schneider:

I have talked with Mr. Zemaitas of the San Francisco office of the N.H.T.S.A. several times about the D.O.T. standards for retreaded pneumatic tires. He was able, after calling the enforcement section of N.H.T.S.A. in Washington, to answer the question I had. When I asked if he could send the information to me in writing, he told me that I would have to write to the legal section in Washington in order to receive a written reply, and he was kind enough to give me your address.

I am a member of the Code Committee of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs. Our Council sanctions slaloms, which are non-racing time and maneuverability events for automobiles. These slaloms are normally held on privately owned parking lots. Many of the cars are towed or trailered to the events since, under the provisions of the California Motor Vehicle Code, they may not legally be driven on streets or highways.

My questions stems from the fact that our slalom code has a rule in reference to tires which states, "Tires must be listed . . . in the manufacturer's printed catalog, and/or have a D.O.T. marking." This rule applies to retreaded tires as well as to new tires.

We have dealt with several retreaders that have been retreading D.O.T. marked carcasses with rubber of a low Shore hardness for increased traction. These tires have met the D.O.T. standards and have always had a tread groove pattern. Consequently the retreaders have marked them with their D.O.T. marks in addition to the original manufacturer's D.O.T. mark already on the carcass. The reason our rule is written specifying a D.O.T. mark is that the safety and strength of tires used in our sport is very important to us. We feel that the retreaders will continue to supply us with high quality, safe tires if we require them to meet the D.O.T. standards for retreaded tires.

My question to Mr. Zemaitas which he referred to the enforcement section (Illegible Words) retreaded tire which meets the standards for retreaded pneumatic tires (Code of Federal REgulations, Title 49, Chapter V, Paragraph 571.117) be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark if (1) there is no groove or rib pattern in the tread, and (2) there are wear indicators in the tread.

The enforcement section indicated to Mr. Zemaitas that this can be done, as there is no requirement for a tread groove or rib pattern, but only for tread wear indicators.

What I would like from you is written verification that, as long as a retreaded tire has tread wear indicators, it does not need to have a tread groove or tread rib pattern in order to be legally marked with the D.O.T. mark. This letter will be shown to other members of the Southern California Council of Sports Car Clubs to verify to them that such a retreaded tire complies with D.O.T. standards and therefore can be legally marked with a D.O.T. mark.

I would appreciate a reply from you as soon as possible. If you have any questions, I am normally available from 10 am. to 3 pm. (PST) at the telephone number shown above.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Langdon III

ID: nht74-2.3

DATE: 10/07/74

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

TO: Southern Railway System

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 24, 1974, question whether Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, would apply to trailers manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, although the painting of the trailers and their delivery to Southern had not been completed.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 provides:

(a) No person shall --

(1) manufacture for sale, sell . . . any motor vehicle . . . manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect under this subchapter unless it is in conformity with such standard . . .

We consider a vehicle to be "manufactured" for purposes of the Act where the vehicle has been completed in all respects except for the addition of readily attachable components or minor finishing operations such as painting undertaken at a later date. A discussion of this point appears in the preamble to a recent Standard No. 121 rulemaking action (39 FR 17564, May 17, 1974). As for possession of the trailers by Southern, delivery of the vehicle is not considered a element of the manufacturing process.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Southern Railway System

Law Department

September 24, 1974

T. W. Herlihy -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Herlihy:

Southern Railway Company is in the process of taking delivery on 1,000 new trailers from the Fruehauf Corporation. These units are being built in Ft. Madison, Iowa and are being shipped over the road to St. Louis, Missouri, where Kux Manufacturing Company is stenciling them. They are then delivered to Southern at our East St. Louis, Illinois Intermodal Facility.

There is no question that Fruehauf will complete the manufacture of these units by January 1, 1975. On the other hand, there is serious doubt that Kux will complete the stenciling by that date and make delivery of all 1,000 units to us. MVSS 121 (the new "brake law") applies to units manufactured after January 1, 1975. Is our understanding correct that as long as the trailers in question are manufactured prior to January 1, 1975, they will not be required to be fitted with the new brake system, even though some of them may actually be delivered after January 1, 1975?

I would appreciate your advice, confirming the foregoing understanding of the law.

With many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

William P. Stallsmith, -- Senior General Attorney

cc: C. E. Webb -- Assistant Vice President-Engineering & Researh, Southern Railway Company

ID: nht74-2.30

DATE: 05/02/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Maxi-Cab Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 18, 1974, asking which Federal requirements apply to the Maxi-Cab, pictures of which you enclose. You describe the Maxi-Cab as a fiberglass shell that fits in the back of compact pickups, and indicate that it has been designed to be used to transport children.

Based on the pictures you have furnished, we have concluded that the Maxi-Cab is a "pickup cover", which is defined in S4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials" (49 CFR 571.205), as "a camper having a roof and sides but without a floor, designed to be mounted on and removable from the cargo area of a truck by the user."

Since you describe the Maxi-Cab as designed to transport persons, the glazing material used in its construction must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205. No other Federal requirements administered by this agency apply to it.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

March 18, 1974

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Dear Sir:

Several months ago we first put a product on the market called the Maxi-Cab. The Maxi-Cab has two parts: The first part is a fibreglass shell that fits on the back of compact pickups. After the first installation the shell can be taken off or put on again in about five minutes. The rear window of the truck cab is removed and there is a waterproof boot between the cab and the shell. The second part is a utility box which slides in under the front part of the shell. This box is then locked in both by sliding bolts and by a clete in the tonneau which holds it in place when the tonneau cover is shut. There are two shelves on the sides and cushions are placed on the shelves either for storage for gear, or if the driver chooses, as seats for children.

We put this product out after checking first with the California State Department of Motor Vehicles who informed us that in their opinion the unit did not come under any existing regulations since it was completely removable.

We then talked also with the California Highway Patrol which in turn referred us to the NHTSA.

I have had a series of phone conversations with a Mr. Buckley in NHTSA and after discussions with legal people in your office he informed us that pending a ruling from your office it was his opinion that with the exception of certain glazing standards (with which we already comply) there were no federal regulations governing this product.

Both for our own peace of mind, and to answer questions from our dealers, we would like to receive some documentation of this opinion. Mr. Buckley indicated that the appropriate method for receiving a written opinion on this matter was to send a written request to your Office requesting a written opinion on this matter.

I am enclosing two photographs which will give you some idea of the appearance and mechanisms involved. I hope they will be sufficient.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

James L. Creighton -- MAXI-CAB ENTERPRISES

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-2.31

DATE: 02/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kar-Kraft, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of December 6, 1973, in response to your phone conversation with Mike Peskoe on February 25, 1974. You indicated then that our reply of February 6, 1974, failed to define "lowest seating position" as that term is used with respect to motorcycles in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (S5.1.2.1 and S5.1.2.2).

We interpret the phrase "lowest seating position" to mean the lowest point on the uncompressed seating surface of the motorcycle operator's seat.

I regret that our earlier letter omitted this information.

ID: nht74-2.32

DATE: 02/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kar-Kraft, Inc.

COPYEE: PESKOE; COMPTON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which you ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the "lowest seating position" for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to "lowest seating surface" in proposed "Fields of Direct View" (Docket No. 70-7; Notice 2; 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.

The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (38 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase "lowest seating position" to be synonymous with "lowest seating surface" with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 105 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 6, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of the Chief Council, N. H. T. S. A.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

In a recent conversation with your Mr. Peskoe, I asked a question relative to FMVSS 205 which Mr. Peskoe advised would best be asked in written form to which your office would make a prompt reply.

Accordingly, my question is this:

In FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials, at S5.1.2.1 "Safety plastic materials . . . may be used in a motor vehicle only in the following specific location at levels not requisite for driving visibility.

(b) Motorcycle windscreens below the intersection of a horizontal plane 15 inches vertically above the lowest seating position."

Additionally, in Docket 70-7, Notice 2, Paragraph S10.1 it says: "There shall be no obstructions forward of the forwardmost point of the driver's seat that are above a horizontal plane 18 inches above the lowest seating surface of the driver's seat . . ."

Specifically, what is the definition of the "lowest seating position" in FMVSS 205 and lowest seating surface in Docket 70-7 and what accounts for the difference in the 15 inch and 18 inch dimensions?

We look forward to your prompt reply in this matter.

Sincerely,

KAR-KRAFT, INC.;

L. A. Volberding -- Administrative Manager

ID: nht74-2.33

DATE: 08/26/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Incorporated

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 2, 1974, asking for the appropriate method for bending plastic material over the mandrel as specified in Test No. 22 of ANS Z26.1-1966, which is incorporated into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205). You indicate that the test procedure does not specify either the bending force, or whether mechanical means for bending are allowed.

Paragraph 5.22.2 of Test 22 states, in part, as follows:

After conditioning, the test specimens shall be immediately bent over a mandrel so that either the entire length of the specimen shall conform to the surface of the mandrel or that it be bent 130 degrees over the mandrel, with the longitudinal axis of the specimen normal to the axis of the mandrel. (emphasis added)

As the procedure does not specify the bending force, or the method in which it is to be applied, the NHTSA would consider as appropriate any force or method of application that would permit the plastic to be bent immediately after conditioning. There is nothing to prohibit the use of hand or mechanical pressure, but it must be applied in such a way that an immediate bending takes place.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY

INCORPORATED

PLASTICS DEPARTMENT

August 2, 1974

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

We manufacture a transparent acrylic safety glazing material, Lucite (register) AR abrasion-resistant sheet. Many of our markets are in the transportation industry, including public buses, people movers, and recreational vehicles. Safety glazing materials must conform to ANSI Z26.1-1966 code for glazing motor vehicles operated on land highways, as required by FMVSS #205. The ANSI Z26.1-1966 code, Item 6, flexible Plastics category, is defined in part by Test No. 22. This test requires that a sample of the plastic be "bent over a mandrel so that either the entire length of the specimen shall conform to the surface of the mandrel or that it be bent 180 degrees over the mandrel." (The diameter of the mandrel being 80 times the sample thickness.) The stated purpose of the test is to determine "satisfactory flexibility".

No mention is made of the method or technique used in forcing the plastic to conform to the mandrel. The test does not indicate whether mechanical means are allowed; and, if so, what force. It is my understanding that some independent testing laboratories use hand pressure.

Would you please indicate to me what the NHTSA or DOT position is on this test and the test method to be used

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Paul D. Carfagna -- Technical Representative, Lucite (register) AR Marketing

ID: nht74-2.34

DATE: 02/15/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Busby Rivkin Sherman Levy and Rehm

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 1973, asking whether glazing in the rear quarter windows of the Datsun model HLB-210 may, consistently with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, be manufactured of AS 3 glazing material. This depends, as you point out, on whether this glazing is used "at levels requisite for driving visibility" under American National Standards Institute Standard ANS Z26.1-1966, incorporated into Standard No. 205. You refer in your letter to section 1017(a) of the California Vehicle Code which states:

Side windows to the rear of the driver and the rear windows not used for vision directly to the rear are not considered areas requisite for driving visibility.

The locations where the use of AS 3 glazing is permitted are set forth on page 12 of ANS Z26. AS 3 glazing may be used, "anywhere in a motor vehicle except in passenger car windshields and in the following locations at levels requisite for driving visibility . . . . (2) Passenger automobiles and taxicabs. Glazing of all windows including rear window, all interior partitions, and all apertures created for window purpose. (emphasis added)

The only exclusion from the broad prohibition against the use of AS3 glazing in passenger cars is "at levels not requisite for driving visibility." We do not agree with the California Code provision. We consider the word "levels" in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to the driver's eyes. We, therefore, cannot concur in the application of the "levels requisite for driving visibility" concept as it appears in Standard No. 205 to complete windows or other glazing areas of passenger cars.

With respect to the Datsun model in question, there is no evidence in your letter that the windows in question are not at a level requisite for driving visibility. In fact, they appear to include levels of a driver's normal eye point.

The NHTSA presently hopes to publish a revised notice of proposed rulemaking regarding direct fields of view in the fall of 1974. Previous proposals regarding this subject were withdrawn by notice published March 7, 1973 (38 FR 6194).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 13, 1973

Guy Hunter -- Motor Vehicle Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Hunter:

This will confirm our conversation of December 7, 1973 relative to the specification of "levels requisite for driver vision" in the ANSI Standard referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

Specifically, we would like your assurance that the guidance provided in the enclosed California Highway Patrol Regulations is in agreement with your interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements. As marked, the California regulations permit the use of AS-3 glass in side windows to the rear of the driver (rear quarter windows).

Further, we would appreciate any indication from you regarding the timing of the proposed rule making on "direct fields of view", which we presume would establish precise future requirements for the location and light transmittance of motor vehicle glazing.

Our interest in this matter arises from the newly introduced model Datsun HLB-210 of our client, Nissan Motor Company. This vehicle has a small fixed pane of AS-3 glazing in what would otherwise be a solid rear quarter panel. I am enclosing a picture of this vehicle.

Respectfully submitted,

BUSBY RIVKIN SHERMAN LEVY and REHM;

George C. Nield -- Engineering Advisor

Enclosures

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL P. O. Box 898 Sacramento 95804

ORDER ADOPTING, AMENDING, OR REPEALING REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

After proceedings had in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code, Title 2, Div. 3, Part 1, Chapter 4.5) and pursuant to the authority vested by Section 2402 of the Vehicle Code, and to implement, interpret or make specific Sections 2402.5, 26106 and 26704 of the Vehicle Code, the Department of the California Highway Patrol hereby adopts, amends, or repeals regulations in Chapter 2, Title 13, California Administrative Code as follows:

(1) Repeals Article 7 of Subchapter 4

(2) Adopts Article 7 of Subchapter 4 to read:

Article 7. Safety Glazing Material

1010. Scope of Regulations. This article shall apply to safety glazing material governed by Sections 535, 26701, 26703, 26704, and 26705 of the Vehicle Code and required to be approved before sale or use.

1011. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply wherever the terms are used in this article:

(a) Safety Glazing Material. Safety glazing material is any glazing material so constructed, treated, or combined with other materials as to reduce, in comparison with ordinary sheet, plate, or float glass, the likelihood of injury to persons by glazing material whether it may be broken or unbroken.

(b) Areas Requisite for Driving Visibility. "Areas requisite for driving visibility" are glazed areas at levels established in Section 1017 of this code for the windshield, the windows and in Section 1017 of this code for the windshield, the windows and wind deflectors to the right and left of the driver, and the rear window, except for rear windows on vehicles equipped with left- and right-hand mirrors.

(c) Daylight Opening. The "daylight opening" is the maximum area of unobstructed visibility in the glazed window.

(d) Camper. A camper is a structure designed to be mounted upon a motor vehicle and to provide facilities for human habitation or camping purposes.

(e) ANSI Standard. An ANSI Standard is a standard issued by the American National Standards Institute, formerly referred to as ASA, American Standards Association, and USASI, United States of America Standards Institute.

(f) Approved Laboratory. An approved laboratory is a laboratory which has facilities and equipment for testing glazing material to ANSI Standards and has been approved by the department in accordance with the provisions of Sections 850 through 859 of this code.

1012. Application for Approval. Requests for approval or reapproval of safety glazing material shall be submitted on forms provided by the department, shall be accompanied by the items specified in following subsections (a) or (b), and (c) and (d), and shall be sent to the following address:

California Highway Patrol Engineering Section P. O. Box 898 Sacramento, California 95804

(a) Test Reports. Test reports shall be those issued by a laboratory approved by the department in accordance with Sections 350 through 859 of the code. Reports shall show compliance with Section 1015 of the code and shall contain at least the following information:

(1) Thickness of samples tested

(2) Color, shade, or tint of samples tested

(3) Size and spacing of conductor, size of bus bar, and spacing from periphery of glass, when electrical conductors are used

(4) A reproduction of the identification markings used on the material required by Section 1014 of this code

(5) Detailed results of each test required by ANSI Standard Z26.1-1966 (6) Date of test completion.

(b) Comparison Reports. Comparison reports shall include the following items:

(1) Copy of original test report for previously approved glazing material

(2) Written statement from the original manufacturer of the material authorizing its use by the applicant under a new identification marking

(3) Addendum to the original test report stating that "The new material is identical in every respect to the original material tested with the exception of the marks of identification. The old marks of identification are and the new marks of identification are ." This statement shall be signed by a representative of the approved laboratory.

(c) Identification Markings. One actual size reproduction of the identification markings used on the glazing material shall be reproduced in black on white paper and submitted with the application.

(d) Samples of Material. Samples of material shall be furnished as follows:

(1) One 2-inch or larger square sample of each color, tint, or shade of plastic glazing material bearing the required identification markings

(2) One 4-inch square sample of any glass containing an electrical conductor and bearing the required identification markings.

1013. Approval of Safety Glazing Material. Safety glazing material shall be approved as follows:

(a) Certificates of Approval. Certificates of approval for glazing material issued between January 1 and June 30, inclusive, shall expire on July 1, five years after the date of the test report. Certificates issued between July 1 and December 31, inclusive, shall expire on January 1, five years after the date of the test report. Certificates issued for a limited term of less than five years shall expire on the date shown on the certificate.

(b) Approval by Comparison. Certificates of approval for glazing material approved on the basis of a comparison report shall have the same expiration date as the certificate for (Illegible Words) glazing material.

(c) Reapproval. Reapproval certificates shall expire five years from the dates of the laboratory reports.

(d) Noncurrent Safety Glazing Material. Noncurrent glazing material for which the certificate has expired may continue to be used on the motor vehicle or camper on which it was installed at the time of expiration and may be transferred between vehicles or campers. Stock on hand in California may continue to be sold for two years after the expiration date of the certificate. Replonishment of stock with material for which the certificate has expired is prohibited.

1014. Identification Markings. Each piece of safety glazing material shall be permanently marked so as to be visible and legible when installed on a vehicle or camper.

(a) Name and Model Designation. Markings shall include the following information:

(1) The manufacturer's name, initials, lettered trademark, or United States Department of Transportation (DOT) assigned code number, which shall be clearly different from those of other manufacturers

(2) The letter "M" followed by the manufacturer's model number for each different type, thickness, color tint, shade, or construction of the material

(3) The letters "AS" followed by the item number in the ANSI Standard with which the material complies, such as ASI or AS2.

(b) Recommended Format. Glazing material submitted for approval on or after September 1, 1970, should have the markings required by subsection (a) arranged so that the manufacturer's name, initials, lettered trademark, or DOT code number and the model number appear in succession on a single line below the trade symbol with no other markings except the "AS" designation on the same line. The following examples illustrate acceptable format:

(Graphics omitted)

(c) Shaded Areas. Shaded areas of less than 70 percent light transmittance which adjoin areas of 70 percent or more light transmittance shall be marked "AVS1" or "AIllegibleS2" at the dividing line. The arrow shall indicate which portion of the material complies with the item number shown.

(d) Size of Markings. The markings required in subsections (a) and (c) shall be in letters and numbers at least 0.070 inch in height. Additional markings may be of any height, shall be immediately above the required markings, and may be changed without notification to the department provided no change is made in the glazing material.

1015. Applicable Safety Glazing Material Standards. Safety glazing material shall meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 and requirements of ANSI Standard Z26.1-1966.

1016. Electrical Conductors. Heating elements used for doing fogging and deicing, and wire and printed conductors used for other purposes manufactured in safety glazing material are acceptable for use in areas requisite for driving visibility in accordance with the following guidelines:

(a) Wire and Printed Conductors in Material Marked AS1. Heated wire conductors in material marked AS1 should not exceed 0.001 inch in diameter, should not be spaced closer than 0.040 inch or further apart than 0.150 inch, and the bus bar which connects the ends should be within 0.5 inch of the periphery of the daylight opening. The diameter of conductors used for other purposes should not exceed 0.010 inch for wire or 0.020 inch in width for printed types. Only one such conductor should be placed within 2 inches of and generally parallel to the periphery of the daylight opening; and not more than two should be centered vertically in the glazing material and spaced not more than 2 inches apart.

(b) Wire Conductors in Material Marked AS2. Wire conductors in material marked ASE should either meet A31 requirements in preceding subsection (a), or they should not exceed 0.0015 inch in diameter nor be spaced closer than 0.080 inch. The bus bar connecting the ends of the conductors should be within 0.5 inch of the periphery of the daylight opening.

(c) Printed Conductors on Material Marked AS2. Printed conductors on glazing material marked AS2 should not be more than 0.040 inch in width nor spaced closer than 0.900 inch. The bus bar connecting the ends of the conductors should be within 0.5 inch of the periphery of the daylight opening.

1017 Determination of Areas Regisite for Driving Visibility. The following methods for determining the levels of glazed areas requisite for driving visibility are recommended and considered acceptable until such time as a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard defining the levels becomes effective:

(a) Levels. The established levels requisite for driving visibility include all levels below a horizontal plane 28 inches above the undepressed driver's seat for passenger cars, and 30 1/2 inches for other motor vehicles, except as specified in following subsections (b), (c), and (d). Measurements are made from a point 5.0 inches ahead of the bottom of the backrest and directly behind the center of the steering wheel, with the driver's seat in the rearmost and lowest position and the vehicle on a level surface. Areas requisite for driving visibility include all glazed areas below this plane and all of the glazed area of windows capable of being lowered. Side windows to the rear of the driver and the rear windows not used for vision directly to the rear are not considered areas requisite for driving visibility.

(b) Special Vehicles. Corresponding eye heights, based upon an average seat depression of 3.3 inches for passenger cars and 2.0 inches for other vehicles, apply to specially designed vehicles or vehicles designed for a standing driver.

(c) Curved Windshields. In order to accommodate manufacturing procedures for curved windshields, it is permissible for shaded windshield glazing material to have less than 70 percent luminous transmittance over areas extending inward from each corner post for a distance not exceeding 10 percent of the windshield width. These areas of reduced luminous transmittance should not extend more than 1.5 inches below the level requisite for driving visibility. The curved windshield exceptions should not apply to motor vehicles manufactured after September 1, 1972.

(d) Motorcycles. The established levels requisite for driving visibility for motorcycles include all planes between a horizontal plane 15 inches above the lowest portion of the seat when the seat is depressed by the operator and a horizontal plane 31 inches above the undepressed seat.

1018. Locations of Safety Glazing Material. Safety glazing material shall be used in accordance with the "AS" number marked on the material as follows:

(a) AS1. Laminated safety glass marked AS1 is required to be used in the windshield of every motor vehicle except a motorcycle and is acceptable for use anywhere in motor vehicles and campers.

(b) AS2 and AS3. Laminated or tempered safety glass marked AS2 is acceptable for use anywhere in a motor vehicle except in the windshield, and anywhere in a camper. Material marked AS3 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(c) AS2-26 and AS3-26. Laminated safety glass marked AS2-26 is acceptable for use anywhere in a motor vehicle except the windshield, and anywhere in a camper. Material marked AS3-26 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(d) AS4 and AS5. Rigid plastic safety glazing material marked AS4 is acceptable for use in interior partitions, auxiliary wind deflectors, folding doors, standee windows in buses, flexible curtains, readily removable windows, openings in roofs, rear windows of soft tops, rear doors of taxicabs, and windows of campers. Material marked AS5 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(e) AS6 and AS7. Flexible plastic safety glazing material marked AS6 is acceptable for use in the rear windows of soft tops, windshields for motorcycles, flexible curtains, and readily removable windows. Material marked AS7 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(f) AS8 and AS9. Wire glass marked AS8 is acceptable for use in folding doors, standee and rearmost windows in buses, and windows to the rear of the driver in trucks and truck tractors. Material marked AS9 has less than 70 percent light transmittance and is acceptable only in areas not requisite for driving visibility.

(g) AS10 and AS11. Laminated safety glazing material marked AS10 or AS11 is for use only in armored cars for which permits have been issued under Section 21713 of the Vehicle Code. Bullet-resistant glass marked AS10 is required in the windshields and is acceptable for use anywhere in the vehicle. Bullet-resistant glass marked AS11 is acceptable for use anywhere in the vehicle except the windshield.

(h) Shaded Material. The dividing line in the "AVS1" or "AVS2" markings on shaded glazing material shall be located so that the darker side of the dividing line is outside the areas requisite for driving visibility.

This order shall take effect on September 1, 1970, as provided in Section 11422(d) of the Government Code.

Dated: July 22, 1970

DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL; A. E. SHAFFER, Captain -- Acting Commander Safety Services Division

ID: nht74-2.35

DATE: 07/30/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Excel Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 28, 1974, requesting the status of a proposed amendment published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 327), to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials," that would have required markings specified for windshields to appear in each windshield's lower left-hand corner.

This proposed requirement was not adopted. Other requirements proposed by this notice, however, were adopted by a subsequent notice published June 21, 1972 (37 F.R. 12237), which amended Standard No. 205. The preamble of this notice referred to the agency's action on the proposed requirements for marking location. A further notice was issued on November 11, 1972 (37 F.R. 24035), which responded to petitions for reconsideration of the amendments of June 21, 1972. Copies of the notices of June 21 and November 11, 1972, are enclosed.

There are presently no requirements regarding the location of markings for motor vehicle glazing materials.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

June 28, 1974

Lawrence Schneider -- National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

On January 9, 1971, page 327 of volume 36, #6 of the Federal Register, a proposed amendment was made to FMVSS#205 at the request of the California Highway Patrol to the effect that after installation of the glazing material in the vehicle, the markings are required to be visible in the lower left corner of each windshield and either the lower left or lower right corner of any other window.

As a manufacturer of windshields and side windows for the recreational vehicle industry, particularly motor homes, we have been trying to comply with this proposed standard by adding two trade marks to our windshields so that in a two part windshield, the glass could be used on either side of the vehicle and still comply; however, in reviewing the Federal Register, we find that no follow-up amendments to the safety standard reflect this change.

With the cost of materials increasing daily, and the fact that we are paying a premium for this added marking, we are going to discontinue this practice since Mr. Douglas Delve of the Department of Transportation has confirmed that this legislation has never been effected. I would like a written confirmation that this pending legislation is either still pending or has been dropped, so that we may proceed with production without any further concern regarding the compliance to the standards.

Very truly yours,

Steve A. Spretnjak -- Chief Design Engineer EXCEL INDUSTRIES

ID: nht74-2.36

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 9, 1974, petition to substitute the proposed performance requirements for child harness testing under Standard No. 213, Child seating systems, for the performance requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to which Questor's Model 275 child harness is presently subject. As reasons for the substitution, you cite the inappropriateness of attachment hardware requirements (S4.3(c)) and the configuration of the test device (Figure 7) of Standard No. 209 as well as the desirability of testing to dynamic performance requirements which may become a part of Standard No. 213.

The Standard No. 213 dynamic test values which you recommend are only proposals at this time. Interested parties have not had a full opportunity to comment on them and the NHTSA has not, of course, had the opportunity to fully evaluate them. For these reasons your petition to substitute these new dynamic tests for the Standard No. 209 static tests is denied.

You state that testing of the Model 275 to the assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209 (S4.4(c)) is complicated by the configuration of the test device for Type III harnesses, which is not suited to test a child harness such as the Questor No. 275 that utilizes the adult front lap belts and the rear adult lap belt or the package shelf as attachment points.

Paragraph S5.3(c)(2) of Standard No. 209 directs that in such a case "attachment shall be . . . in accordance with the [manufacturer's] installation instructions". As adherence to Model 275 installation instructions requires a front and rear adult belt installation (and in some cases a package shelf) the use of an actual vehicle bench seat in a passenger car would be an appropriate method to evaluate the assembly under S4.4(c) of Standard No. 209. Moreover, because the 12-inch extension requirement for an assembly tested under S4.4(c) is based on zero deflection of the test device, the actual vehicle seat should be modified to eliminate deflection.

The NHTSA has previously determined that the requirements of S4.3(c) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to bolts used to secure an adult upper torso restraint, other than the continuous loop type. Similarly, we interpret this provision not apply to the child harness upper torso restraint described in your letter. The bolts would be regulated with respect to strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(c).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 9, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson:

Questor Corporation has recently developed a novel child restraint harness that is to be marketed under the brand name "Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness." This restraint system has been under development for over two years to provide maximum dynamic performance at least possible cost to the consumer.

The Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness has closely approached the dynamic performance objectives proposed by the DOT to be effective September 1, 1975. When tested with a standard Sierra three-year-old child dummy, this restraint limited head excursion to 18.8 inches in a 30 mph frontal barrier impact test. Additional improvements in design have been made which will further reduce head excursion.

The unique design characteristics of this harness, which provide exceptional dynamic performance, also present difficulties in determining its compliance with FMVSS 209 for Type 3 seat belt assemblies. These problems were discussed with Messrs. R. Jasinski, J. Gilkey, T. Herlihy, and M. Peskoe during a personal visit to Washington on April 4. Mr. Jasinski also reviewed the situation in a phone conversation with Mr. R. Hitchcock. It was suggested after these conversations that this letter be written to you, outlining the areas of concern relative to FMVSS 209.

The design of Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness departs radically from child harnesses commercially available to date. Current harnesses require mounting to the floor of the automobile to restrain the child and vehicle seat back from movement during impact or load. Inasmuch as this floor anchorage could inadvertently be used by the present automobile owner or subsequent owners for an adult lap belt attachment point, it is understandable that FMVSS 209 would require the strength of this anchorage to be no less than 5,000 pounds, paragraph S4.3 (c) (1).

It is further recognized that currently available child harnesses loop over the adult backrest of automobiles, prior to being themselves anchored to the vehicle floor, and thus largely rely upon the strength of the automobile backrest to reduce movement of the child in an accident situation and/or also restrain the backrest. The assembly performance criteria of FMVSS 209 paragraphs S5.3 (c) (1) through (4) provide some degree of simulating this installation, and yet the force requirement that the complete assembly is required to withstand is 2,000 pounds, 100 per cent greater than the force requirements of FMVSS 213.

The Model 275 Child Harness is shown in accompanying Figures 1 and 2. The significant differences in its installation when compared with existing harnesses are readily apparent.

Firstly, an adult lap belt is used to position the lower portion of the child's harness both laterally and forwardly. Secondly, a back strap, or upper tie-down, connects the child harness at the shoulder strap area to either a rear seat adult lap belt for a front seat installation (Figure 1) in an automobile or to a supplementary anchor installed in the metal portion of the panel between the seat back and the rear window for rear seat installation (Figure 2). Neither the front nor rear seat installations require changes or additions to anchorages at the vehicle floor.

The viability of the upper tie-down attachment has been dynamically demonstrated by a well-known child seating restraint system that not only must restrain the child but also the child seating system itself. The upper tie-down strap most nearly approximates the function of an adult shoulder strap; that is, it keeps the upper torso from pivoting forward in a frontal impact. FMVSS 209 does not specify minimum force requirements for either Type 2, Type 2a, or Type 3 upper torso restraint attachment hardware.

It is suggested, therefore, that the requirements within FMVSS 209 for attachment hardware are neither clear nor appropriate for the Infanseat harness. In addition, the test method for assembly performance does not provide for the recommended installation of this product.

While attempts could be made to modify the simulated seat back shown in Figure 7 of FMVSS 209 to provide for the installation of the Infanseat harness, it is felt that any modification will not adequately reporduce the distribution of forces encountered in real-world situations. Also, any approved simulated static load test of a complete assembly at this time is not felt to be appropriate with dynamic testing of child harnesses soon to be required.

It is respectfully suggested that rather than subject the DOT to possible adverse public criticism by requesting another static test to determine the adequacy of the complete Infanseat harness assembly, it be excluded from the attachment hardware and complete assembly requirements of FMVSS 209. In lieu of these requirements, the Infanseat harness should be required to prevent head excursion of a Sierra three-year-old test device beyond 18 inches in a simulated 30 mph frontal impact test. The Infanseat harness would thus be required to meet the DOT's proposed dynamic performance requirements for child restraints.

Data substantiating the dynamic performance of the Infanseat harness has been independently verified by tests conducted for Consumers Union on prototype harnesses. These tests were not published by CU because the harnesses were not available commercially when their magazine went to press. Additional tests have been conducted to determine the suitability of various materials, installations, and test devices. Significant improvements to the harness are expected to be made, such that it appears likely in the very near future to provide dynamic protection for six-year-old children within the proposed excursion limits desired by the DOT.

As important as the Infanseat harness's dynamic performance is its expected retail selling price. The DOT and child restraint manufacturers are equally concerned that children's restraint devices be affordable by the largest possible segment of the public. It is recognized that the purchase and, therefore, the eventual use of children's restraints are directly related to their cost. The Infanseat harness is expected to be marketed at one-half to one-third of the price of existing restraint systems.

Thank you for your attention to this request for revised interim requirements that would be applicable to the Infanseat harness, and your early response shall be greatly appreciated. It is understood that this product would automatically be required to comply with the proposed revisions to FMVSS 213 when they become effective.

Yours very truly,

QUESTOR JUVENILE PRODUCTS COMPANY;

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. #E-36338 -- Director, Technical Services

Attachments

cc: R. Hitchcock; T. W. Herlihy; M. P. Peskoe; J. C. Gilkey; R. Jasinski

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)