ID: 1983-2.49

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Autodrome de Linas-Montlhery/Union Technique de L'Automobile du Motorcycle et du Cycle (H. Le Guen)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Le Guen Laboratory Director Union Technique de L'Automobile du Motocycle et du Cycle Autodrome de Linas-Montlhery Linas, 91310 Montlhery France

Dear Mr. Le Guen:

This is in reply to your letter of July 27, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking several questions with respect to the amendment of Standard No. 108, June 2, 1983, which permits semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamps.

First, you mention certain sealing specifications, contrasting them with references to designed openings, and ask for our comments on this. Although the design that Ford intends to use is not a vented system, the amendment does not specify or prohibit either vented or unvented systems. A vented system using the standardized replaceable light source and the O-ring seal is permissable if the headlamp passes all the recently adopted environmental tests.

With reference to your further questions, there are no tolerances on the dust test. You have also asked whether, assuming that a European type headlamp using the new light source "passes all tests mentioned in the amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 108, would it get D.O.T. approval?" If the lens-reflector unit is bonded, and if with the light source inserted the lamp meets U.S. photometric requirements and all environmental tests specified in the amend-ment, then the manufacturer of the lamp may apply the D.O.T. symbol to it. This is the certification that the lamp meets all applicable U.S. Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under this self-certification process, the manufacturer, rather than D.O.T., approves the lamp for sale.

Finally, you have asked who will manufacture the new bulb and where you might be able to obtain test samples. Ford's initial supplier will be Sylvania/GTE, and you may write GTE Products Corp., West Main Street, Hillsboro, NH 03249, Attn: Mr. Richardson.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

LINAS, July 27, 1983

Mr. TAYLOR VINSON NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S.W. WASHINGTON D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Our ref. HLG/RR/JP/83.1159.33 Signed by: Mr. RENDU

Dear Mr. VINSON,

After reading over pages 24690 to 24716 of the 02 June 1983 Federal Register an interesting discrepancy come up. On the first page (24690), second column lines 10 and 61, and the third column line 62 of the same page, indicate the new plastic headlamp is to be semi-sealed, the opening (for the bulb) non-sealed, the bulb being the sealing piece with its "O" ring seal. Later in the text, page 7 (24696), third column, line 46, (corrosion) mentioned are "drainholes, breathing devices, and other designed openings that are to be in their normal positions" during testing.

If you could please comment on this point and possibly clarify this new standard this would be most helpful to us. In addition, if you could please comment on : Are there any tolerances in the "dust test" ? If a glass lens, metal reflector, European type headlamp, (using the new standard bulb) passes all tests mentioned in the Amendment to F.M.V.S.S. 108, would it get D.O.T. approval? And who is going to manufacture, and where would we able to obtain a sample of the new "standard" bulb?

Thank you very much for your assistance and we hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

H. LE GUEN LABORATORY DIRECTOR

ID: 1983-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/11/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Truck-Lite Co. Inc. -- John E. Bennett, Director, Research & Engineering

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John E. Bennett Director - Research & Engineering Truck-Lite Co., Inc. 310 East Elmwood Avenue Falconer, New York 14733

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This in response to your letter of April 12, 1983, asking for interpretation of paragraph S4.6(b) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This paragraph states in pertinent part that "means may be provided to flask...side marker lamps for signalling purposes." You have first asked whether the rear side marker can be made to flash. You have also asked whether this language may be interpreted as allowing both front and rear side marker lamps to be flashed. The answer to both questions is yes. In the absence of restrictive language, paragraph S4.6 may be interpreted as allowing flashing of either front or rear side marker lamps, or both sets of lamps.

You have also asked whether, where the rear side marker and taillamp used the same optical source ("minor filament of a 1157 or similar bulb"), it is acceptable to have an overriding signal lamp is actuated. The answer is yes. The standard's prohibition against optical combinations (paragraph S4.1.1) does not preclude this design.

We hope that this answers you questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 12, 1983

Attention: Office of Chief Counsel (Room 5219)

Subject: Request for interpretation of an element of FMVSS-108

Dear Sir:

In our endeavor to continue the advancements of vehicle lighting devices, which is a continuing assignment within our company, and offer specialized products to our customers with inherent benefits to the consumers, we have under consideration a new product which requires an interpretation of Section S4.6 Item (b), FMVSS-108, before we finalize our programs.

This section (S4.6) of FMVSS-108 requires.. "when activated:

a. Turn signal lamps, hazard warning signal lamps, and school bus warning lamps shall flash; and b. All other lamps shall be steady burning, except that means may be provided to flash headlamps and side marker lamps for signalling purposes."

Our questions are in reference to the rear side marker lamp and item (b) above. They are stated as follows:

a. Can the rear side marker be made to flash? Is Section S4.6, Item (b) to be interpreted as both front and rear side marker lamps may be flashed for signalling purposes? We know of only one current production (Jeep CJ) vehicle which the rear side marker lamp might be so viewed.

b. In a design where the rear side marker function and the rear tail lamp use the same optical source (minor filament of a 1157 or similar bulb), is it acceptable to have an overriding-flashing signal visible through the rear side marker lens when the signal lamp is actuated?

We are attempting to market a new product within the near future and do not wish to proceed until the above is cleared. Therefore we would appreciate your response to your questions as soon as possible.

Kindly accept our thanks for your prompt attention to this request. Do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of additional assistance.

Sincerely,

TRUCK-LITE CO., INC.

John E. Bennett Director - Research & Engineering JEB:h cc: R. Kotsi

ID: 1983-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Benchmark Research Inc. -- Gary Fulmer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Fulmer Benchmark Research, Inc. 9921 NE 135th Pl., #1 Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Mr. Fulmer:

This responds to your letter asking whether an adapter you plan to manufacture for attachment to child restraint systems must be tested for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). The adapter you plan to manufacture snaps onto the bottom of the tube frame of child restraints, and unfolds legs and wheels to convert the car seat into a stroller. Your device does not need to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. However, you might wish to test it to ensure that it does not constitute a safety-related defect when attached to a child restraint and for purposes of product liability.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." The stroller adapter you plan to produce is not designed to perform any of these functions, and therefore is not a child restraint within the meaning of Standard No. 213. Because the devise is not a child restraint system, it need not comply with any of the requirements of Standard No. 213.

One requirement which might be applicable to the use of your device is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which states "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or other motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..." This could be important if the attachment of your stroller adapter to a child restraint system caused the child restraint system to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. It appears from your letter, however, that the purchaser of your device would attach it to a child restraint, and not a manufacturer or dealer. The statutory prohibition is not violated when a purchaser attaches a device to an item or motor vehicle equipment. Hence, if my understanding is correct, this would not present any difficulties for your company.

There are two possible reasons which might lead you to try to test this adapter to learn if it affects the performance of child restraint systems to which it is attached. First, if the attachment of your adapter causes the child restraint to provide a lower level of safety, or if all or part of the adapter were to separate from the child restraint in a crash situation, the adapter might well be found to contain a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. Sections 151-154 of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414) require that when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser.

Second, you may wish to consult an attorney for advice on potential product liability issues which would arise from attaching your adapter to certified child restraint systems. It is possible that some testing of your adapter attached to a child restraint system in a crash situation would be helpful in the event of a product liability suit.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Benchmark Research Inc. Office of Chief Council 9921 N. E. 135th Pl. #1 Vehicle Safety Commission Kirkland, Wa. 98033 400 7th St. S.W. June 28, 1983 Wash., D.C. 20950

To whom it may concern:

A friend of mine, Bob Rodwell from the Small Business Development Center in Seattle called you Monday regarding testing of a product I have. You mentioned that it is not required of this product. Per your discussion with whom I need a written response from you for my records stating that testing of this devise is not necessary.

To refresh your memory and to give you a framework to state your opinion on the product, I am writing a summary of the product.

Briefly, it is a permanently attachable adapter that snaps to the bottom tube frame on all standard child safety car seats. This device houses a set of four folding legs with wheels that click into folded and unfolded position, using a modified version of a standard gurny, the attachment to the car seat frame is universal, being able to adapt to any size and shape.

In summary, this device allows one to simply unsnap the seat belt, leaving the child strapped in the car seat, pull the adapter frame handle, pulling the car seat out car, the legs then unfolding and locking by themselves as part of the gurny action. Now you simply rotate the car seat 90 degrees to lock, and roll the entire device away. I have a prospective buyer for this product and would appreciate hearing from you on this matter as soon as possible since it will help to expedite sale of the item. Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Sign off: 8:47 A.M. Eastern Time, FEBRUARY 7, 1996

ID: 1983-2.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Eaton Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking a question concerning Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. You note that there is an ambiguity in the formula referenced in paragraph S8.3.2(e) of that standard as set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations. Specifically, you ask whether the entire fraction that is specified is multiplied by "100" or whether only the denominator of the fraction is multiplied by "100".

The correct formula is as follows:

(W3-W4) - (W1-W2) / (W1-W2) X 100

The formula as specified in the Code of Federal Regulations should, therefore, include additional brackets around the fraction, separating the fraction from the "X 100" figure. We will notify the Federal Register concerning this error.

I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding you may have had.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

APRIL 11, 1983

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, Crash Avoidance Division, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Dear Sirs,

I have been comparing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 106-74, Brake Hoses, with the Code of Federal Regulations - Title 49 - S571,106 - Standard 106 - Brake Hoses.

I would draw your attention to paragraph S8.3.2(e) ref calculation of the percentage increase in volume. In 106-74 the formula is given as:-

Percent of increase = (W3-W4) - (W1-W2) / (W1-W2) x 100

In S571,106 the formula is given as:-

Percent of increase = [(W3-W4) - W1-W2)] / (W1-W2) x 100

This could be interpreted as:-

Percent of increase = [(W3-W4) - (W1-W2)] / (W1-W2) x 100

which is not the same as the formula given in 106-74.

This, I believe, could lead to problems. I enclose the appropriate pages from the standards mentioned with the paragraph highlighted in red.

I should be pleased to receive your comments as we are endeavouring to get a potential supplier of hoses to comply with S.571.106.

Yours faithfully,

N. COPE

Standards Engineer -- EATON LIMITED TRUCK COMPONENTS OPERATIONS

ID: 1983-2.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sylvania GTE Products Corporation -- Ken Alexander, Engineering Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ken Alexander Engineering Manager Sylvania GTE products Corporation 1231 "A" Avenue North Seymour, Indiana 47274

Dear Mr. Alexander:

This is in reply to your letter of April 8, 1983, following a conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office, with reference to Standard No. 108 Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

You are concerned with the "design to conform" language as it relates to headlamps, and have asked for an interpretation that it "does not mean that every lamp produced is required to have every photometric point in."

I am not certain what you mean by "every photometric point in." However, a manufacturer is expected to design his headlamps so that each will meet the minimum photometric output in candela set for the by SAE J579C for each test point. The agency does not pursue random occasional photometric failures at individual test points. But if a manufacturer's products show a pattern of failures to meet the minimum at any individual test point, the agency could consider this as an indication that the headlamp was, in fact, not "designed to conform".

I hope this answers you question.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 8, 1983

Dear Sirs:

This letter is a follow-up to a conversation that I had with Mr. Taylor Vincent of your office.

As I explained in my conversation, we are a major supplier of halogen headlamps to the automotive industry, both domestic and overseas. We are currently engaged in discussions with one of the major auto makers in Japan, with purpose of us supplying headlamps for the cars that they export into the U.S. The Japanese have a lot of trouble in understanding your rules and regulations, and I have spent a lot of in trying to explain them. What I need the help of your office in is the following. I have gone over in detail with them the parts of FMVSS 108 that relate to photometrics of headlamps. I have explained that the references to SAE J579 is to a "design to conform" standard and does not mean that every headlamp produced has to have every photometric point in. I continued that the headlamp suppliers are reputable companies that have shown due regard in making their headlamps the best possible product, give the constraints of manufacturability; and that this is recognized and accepted by the federal government. Although they seem to understand what I am saying, they have asked me to obtain a supportive statement to this effect form someone within the regulatory agencies.

I understand the most acceptable way of doing this is to send you a brief statement of the above interpretation, from which your office can give a formal note of acceptance and agreement. I have attached same, and would appreciate very much the above mentioned action by your office in as short of time as possible.

I realize these are busy times and am sorry to have to add to your schedule, but our potential Japanese customers are insistent on us getting this not of agreement.

Thank you very much for your help and consideration.

Ken Alexander Engineering Manager KA/rb Attachment

ID: 1983-2.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company -- Tom Caine, Law Dept.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/24/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Garvin-Fram Inc.

TEXT:

Tom Caine, Esq. Law Department The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Akron, Ohio 44316-0001

Dear Mr. Caine:

This responds to your request for a clarification concerning a letter of interpretation issued by the agency with respect to the responsibilities of various parties after tires have been damaged by a fire and the manufacturer has determined that the DOT certification on the sidewall is no longer valid. Specifically, I stated in a February 24, 1983, letter to Mr. Jack Garvin that, in the event of fire damage to tires, the manufacturer whose certification appears on the sidewall must determine whether that certification is still valid after the fire damage. Further, I stated that if the certification is no longer valid, the manufacturer must remove its DOT symbol from the sidewall of the tires, and those tires cannot be sold.

You stated that you understand this duty exists when the damaged tires are still within the control of the manufacturer. However, you have a problem with the interpretation when control of the damaged tires has passed from the manufacturer to a third party, such as an independent dealer or a salvage company. You noted that Goodyear has had a continuing problem with common carriers, insurance companies, and salvage companies which try to sell tires after Goodyear has determined that the certification on those tires is no longer valid.

I certainly did not mean to imply in my previous interpretation that a tire manufacturer is required to physically seize fire-damaged tires in situations where physical control over those tires has passed to some third party. In those situations, the tire manufacturer can simply notify the controlling party that the tires can no longer be certified as complying with the applicable safety standard (Standard No. 109 for passenger car tires and Standard No. 119 for all other tires for use on motor vehicles), and the tires cannot legally be sold. It would be helpful for enforcement purposes if the tire manufacturer were to forward a copy of any such notification to a controlling party to this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.

As you correctly noted in your letter, section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397), prohibits any party from offering for sale or introducing into commerce any tire which the party knows does not conform to the requirements of the applicable safety standards. A party which has been directly informed by a tire manufacturer that a group of tires no longer complies with the applicable safety standard could not sell those tires or otherwise introduce them into commerce without violating section 108. Section 109 of the Safety Act subjects a party to a civil penalty of up to $1000 for a violation of section 108, and each tire sold in these circumstances would be a separate violation of section 108. Additionally, section S6 of Standard No. 109 prohibits the sale or introduction into commerce for any purpose of tires designed for use on passenger cars if those tires do not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 109. This would make it illegal for a third party to sell fire-damaged passenger car tires as farm-use tires or non-highway tires.

Please note that this letter does not address any responsibilities which the tire manufacturer or salvager/seller may have to a consumer who in good faith buys a fire-damaged tire. If you have any further questions in this area, please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 22, 1983

Mr Frank Berndt -- NHTSA

Your recent opinion letter (copy attached) addressed to Mr Jack Garvin, Schaumburg, Illinois, concerning highway tires damaged by fire has come to my attention.

You indicate that if the tire manufacturer determines that its original certification is no longer valid because of fire damage, then it is the manufacturer's responsibility to remove the DOT symbol from the sidewall of the damaged tires.

We have no problem with the position you spell out so long as the damaged tires are within the control (title and possession) of the manufacturer. However, we do have a problem with respect to tires which have been sold (title passed) to independent dealers or resold by dealers to salvage companies or in the possession of a common carrier or its salvage company.

We have had a continuing problem with common carriers, insurance companies and salvage companies who insist that there is a salvage value even though we have determined that the tires are no longer certifiable and should be scrapped.

It appears to me that the basic law 15 USCA S1397(a)(1) prohibits any person from selling a non-certifiable highway tire for resale unless the person did not have reason to know the tire was not certifiable. Accordingly, it would seem that when the manufacturer notifies a salvage company or common carrier that a tire is no longer certifiable, the responsibility for compliance with the law has shifted to the salvage company or common carrier involved. In addition, I have to assume that 49 CFR 571.109 S6. (nonconforming tires) applies in this situation and would prohibit a salvage company or common carrier from reclassifying a highway auto tire as a "farm use only" tire or "non-highway" tire.

Will you please advise me as to your position concerning the tire manufacturer's responsibility under the circumstances set forth above.

Sincerely

Attorney

T D Caine ph Attachment (2/24/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Garvin-Fram Inc. omitted here.)

ID: 1983-3.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: VIRACON Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Richards VIRACON, Inc. 800 Park Drive Owatonna, MN 55060

Dear Mr. Richards:

This is to follow-up on your phone conversation with Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the agency's regulations and standards which would be applicable to a sun roof kit that you plan to manufacture as an item of aftermarket motor vehicle equipment. As I understand it, you only plan to manufacture the sun roof kit and have no plans to install the sun roof in vehicles. You were, however, interested in any regulations or standards affecting the installation of such a sun roof kit.

Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, specifies performance and location requirements for all glazing materials used on motor vehicles, whether as original equipment or as replacement (aftermarket) equipment. As a manufacturer or fabricator of glazing you would have to certify that the glazing used in your sun roof complies with all applicable requirements of the standard, a copy of which is enclosed.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have specific responsibilities under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act regarding safety-related defects in their products. Sections 151 et seq. of the Act requires manufacturers to notify purchasers about safety-related defects in their product and to remedy such defects without charge. A copy of the Act and the applicable defect regulations are enclosed. In addition, Part 556, Manufacturer Identification, requires vehicle and equipment manufacturers to provide the agency with certain information concerning themselves and the products they manufacture. A copy of Part 556 is enclosed.

If a sun roof is added to a vehicle before sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, the vehicle alterer is required by Part 567 of our regulations to certify that the vehicle, as altered, complies with all applicable safety standards. A copy of Part 567 is enclosed. If the sun roof is added by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair shop after the sale of the vehicle to its first purchaser, the vehicle does not have to be recertified. Such businesses are, however, prohibited from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed in a vehicle in compliance with any safety standard. Thus, for example, they would have to ensure that they do not install the sun roof in such a way that the vehicle no longer complies with Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, a copy of which is enclosed.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ID: 1983-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lansing Auto Glass Co. -- Anthony M. Peterson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This responds to your letter concerning the application of the render inoperative provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to the replacement of vehicle windshields by motor vehicle repair businesses.

As explained in my letter of September 3, 1981, to Mr. Stanley, the agency does not consider fixing a damaged windshield to constitute a rendering inoperative of the windshield with respect to Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. That letter did caution that if a repair shop, in the course of fixing a damaged windshield, renders another part of the vehicle or element of design inoperative with respect to another applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, then the repair shop would violate section 108(a)(2)(A).

You specifically asked whether in replacing a windshield a repair shop must use the same method (e.g., setting the glass with urethane) the original equipment manufacturer used to maintain the integrity of the installation. The agency does not consider the replacement of a damaged windshield to constitute a rendering inoperative with respect to Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting, which establishes windshield retention requirements for new vehicles, regardless of the method used to maintain the integrity of the windshield.

Although section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would not apply to the replacement of a damaged windshield, product liability concerns dictate that a repair shop ensure that the replace- ment windshield is mounted securely. Mounting the windshield with the same method used by the vehicle manufacturer presum- ably would ensure that the replacement windshield had the same integrity as the original windshield installation.

You also asked about the effect of section 108(a)(2)(A) on a repair shop that replaces a windshield for a dealer who will resell the vehicle and a replacement of a windshield for an insurance company for one of its policyholders. Assuming that the repair shop is replacing a damaged windshield, section 108(a)(2)(A) would not apply.

I hope this discussion is of assistance to you. If you have any further questions please contact Stephen Oesch of my staff (202-426-1834).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Lansing Auto Glass Co.

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh St. S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Att. Mr. Frank Berndt. Chief Council

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am in receipt of a copy of a letter you addressed to Mr.Robert W. Stanley, then Executive Vice President of the National Glass Dealers Assoc, in Sept. of 1981. It concerned the legal use of repairing damaged windshield with plasticizers or epoxy mixtures covered by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended in 1974, Safety Standard No. 205 which established performance requirements for automotive glazing.

My question deals with the replacement of the windshield rather than the repair of it. You state that Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits various concerns, but in our interest more specifically, motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Standard. You also take me aware that the person repairing a damaged windshield does not render it inoperative as that was done by whatever did the original damage but that should he damage or change something else on the vehicle while make a repair he could violate the act.

I suppose that the methods used by the manufacturer of the automobile in installing the original windshield is covered and established in Safety Standard No. 205. If this is the case I would also suppose that any person who replaces broken windshield by removing the original one from the vehicle and installing a new one in its place would be required to use the same method as the original equipment manafacturer used so as to retain the integrity of the installation and meet the requirements dictated by Standard No. 205. This is to say that if the original glass was set with urethane then the replacement glass must be set with urethane. Is this indeed the case?

If this is so what effect does the law have on the replacement of a windshield for a deal" who will resell the vehicle and on the replacement of a windshield for an an insurance company for one of their individual clients? In the latter case the vehicle may not be resold for several months or even years but the repairs, if not done properly would render the automobile inoperative or better said the windshield inoperative.

I will sincerely appreciate your answer to these questions and any clarification of the law you can extend me.

Anthony M. Peterson.

ID: 1983-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Sebring Air Terminal PAR=LOCATION

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: 1983-3.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/20/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATON

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in reply to your letter of August 4, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of this office asking for a reconsideration of our December 8, 19B2, letter in which we stated that Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. You have pointed out that this appears to reverse a previous interpretation issued by this office on March 15, 1978, in which we concluded that such covers were not precluded.

As is well known, SAE Standard J580 Sealed Beam Headlamp Assembly precludes the use of covers in front of headlamps in use. Because Standard No. 108 allows installation on motorcycles of half of a passenger car sealed beam headlighting system (principally because SAE J584 allows use of headlamps meeting SAE J579 Sealed Beam Headlamp Units), the 1982 interpretation applied the prohibition against covers to all sealed beam headlamps, even those used on motorcycles. With respect to unsealed lamps, the agency cited paragraph S4.1.3, the prohibition against installation of additional equipment impairing the effectiveness of required lighting equipment, and concluded that the possibility of deterioration of light output through cracked or discolored covers precluded covers over nonsealed lamps. On the other hand, the 1978 interpretation concluded that, since the cross referenced J579 did not itself reference J580, the prohibition did not apply.

We have reviewed this matter and have concluded that headlamp covers for motorcycles are not per se prohibited by Standard No. 108. As the 1978 interpretation implies, and as you make explicit, the only standard Table III directly incorporates for motorcycle headlamps is J584, whereas J580 is one of several standards directly incorporated for headlamps on four-wheeled vehicles. Nevertheless, we still conclude that these covers are prohibited if they impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

If, for example, the angle of the cover is so extreme that headlamp "effectiveness" is "impaired" because of deterioration of the beam, then the manufacturer may wish to remove the shield or redesign it. If, as another example, a plastic cover is intended and a manufacturer has knowledge that it is susceptible to accelerated hazing or cracking, the manufacturer should not use a cover manufactured of this plastic.

In summary, this letter modifies both our 1978 and 1982 opinions by concluding that headlamp covers for motorcycles are permissible if they will not impair the effectiveness of the headlamp.

The agency is reviewing this subject to determine if rulemaking is advisable to prohibit covers of any sort over motorcycle headlamps, similar to the prohibition against such covers on four-wheeled motor vehicles.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 4, 1983

Mr. Z. Taylor Vinson, Esq. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

RE: Motorcycle Headlamp Cover

Dear Mr. Vinson:

On February 1, 1983, members of the motorcycle industry met with you and NHTSA rulemaking (lighting) and enforcement personnel to discuss NHTSA's new interpretation regarding the installation of transparent covers in front of motorcycle headlamps. This interpretation, contained in a December 8, 1982 letter from Frank Berndt, NHTSA Chief Counsel, stated that NHTSA now views that FMVSS 108 prohibits the use of glass or plastic shields in front of motorcycle headlamps. This reverses a previous interpretation contained in a March 15, 1978 letter from Joseph J. Levin, Jr., then NHTSA Chief Counsel, which stated that NHTSA did not read the prohibition against covers as applying to motorcycles equipped with either sealed or unsealed headlamps because the referenced motorcycle headlamp standard in Table III of FMVSS 108, SAE J584, does not prohibit the installation of such covers.

We disagree with the reversal of the earlier interpretation.

Table III of FMVSS 108 requires motorcycles to comply with SAE Standard J584, April 1964. SAE J584 sets forth photometric requirements for motorcycle headlamps and does not prohibit glass covers. It also provides for alternative compliance by fitting headlamps conforming to SAE 579 (which, incidentally, also does not prohibit such covers). S4.1.1.34 provides that a motorcycle may be equipped with various combinations of headlamps from the passenger car headlamp systems, and contains no prohibition of headlamp covers. The only prohibition against the use of headlamp covers in FMVSS 108 is contained in SAE Standard J580a/b, referenced in Table III and applies only to sealed beam headlamps installed in passenger cars, multi-purpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. SAE J580a and J580b are concerned with the aim of a headlamp's beam, and proscribe glass covers so the aim can be readily inspected using a mechanical aimer that registers on the headlamp's three aiming pads. J584 motorcycle headlamps do not have these aiming pads, so there is no such need to preclude the use of glass covers.

NHTSA to support its position that Standard 108 precludes the use of covers over motorcycle headlamps relies on two arguments. We disagree with both:

1. That the prohibition contained in SAE Standard J580 applies to motorcycles, since SAE J580 is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108.

SAE J580 does not apply to motorcycles. It is referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 only for passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses. The primary referenced requirement for motorcycles in FMVSS 108 is SAE J584, which contains no such prohibition. SAE J584, in turn, permits alternative compliance with SAE J579, which neither contains such a prohibition nor references J580. In addition, S4.1.1.34 contains additional means of compliance for motorcycles, but no such prohibition.

2. That the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of S4.1.3 of FMVSS 108 precludes the use of such covers because the covers "impair the effectiveness" of headlamps.

This is an improper interpretation of S4.1.3. The impaired effectiveness requirement was intended to preclude the use of devices that render the required devices (although themselves meeting the standard) ineffective. For example, the fitting of a red lamp to a vehicle immediately adjacent to the required amber front side marker lamp and likewise an amber lamp fitted adjacent to the required rear red side marker lamp would impair the effectiveness of the required lamps, as ambiguity would result. Such an impairment would also result from the placement of an extremely bright lamp adjacent to a signal lamp, thus obliterating the light output of the signal lamp. Impairment of effectiveness does not relate to durability requirements as NHTSA would suggest.

In those instances where durability of lamps, lens materials, and other equipment is deemed to be important, FMVSS 108 contains specific durability requirments applicable to such equipment. As long as the headlamp cover does not preclude the headlamp from conforming to the performance requirements specified in FMVSS 108 at the time of sale of the motorcycle, the cover does not "impair the effectiveness" of the required equipment.

The interpretation of December 8 refers to the "impairs the effectiveness" clause of FMVSS 108, S4.1.3, as if impairing were an absolute, regardless of whether an impaired lamp were still within specifications. Compliance with specifications, however, is implicit to S4.1.3 because only lamps complying with specifications are required by this standard. S4.3.1.1. clearly relates compliance of any lamp to meeting or not meeting photometric output.

In addition, the preamble to the January 17, 1983 notice of proposed rulemaking to amend FMVSS 108 (Docket 81-11: Notice 2) discusses the very subject of permissible impairment and concludes that compliance with required photometrics is the only test that can be applied. In rejecting petitioner's argument that conformance of a lamp should be based on relative degradation from the original output, NHTSA states (48 FR 1994), "....a lamp that far exceeded the minimum could "fail" if diminution exceeded 10 percent, even though the safety based J579c minima were still met. Such a result would appear to be excessive as a minimum safety standard. ...NHTSA believes it simpler and preferable that photometric measurements be taken at the end of each of the relevant tests in the sequential test series, and that the lamp at each such point comply with the photometrics of J579c". Thus, this preamble recognizes that photometric standards are composed of minimums and maximums, and that there would be no difference between a lamp designed to lower output and one that deteriorated to that same level, as long as both lamps at the reduced level of output comply with specifications.

That compliance is the sole criterion is further underscored in the letter of interpretation from Frank Berndt, then NHTSA Acting Chief Counsel, to Roderick A. Willcox, July 23, 1976, in which it is stated, in reference to a bug screen placed in front of headlamps, "Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579 or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580)."

One of the issues raised at the meeting was whether the BMW headlamp/cover complied with the photometric requirments of FMVSS 108. We indicated to you that we would have such a unit tested at an independent laboratory and submit the results to NHTSA. Electrical Testing Laboratories (ETL) has just completed the environmental and photometric tests prescribed by FMVSS 108 on one of our headlamps, and we attach a copy of their report. The report shows that the headlamp with glass cover passed the photometric tests of SAE J584, April 1964, both before and after the required environmental tests.

BMW uses the J584 motorcycle headlamp because, as recognized by NHTSA in 44 FR 20536, its photometrics are superior for motorcycles. The glass cover is designed as an integral part of the lamp and provides improved aerodynamics, which result in self-cleansing action; the cover also protects the headlamp from impacts and prevents the leadlamp's exposure to rain and dirt. Heat from the headlamp, which is on all the time, is sufficient to prevent buildup of moisture on the cover, while the cover, because of its distance in front of the lamp, minimizes the baking on of dirt and bugs. Generally, we find that most motorcycle owners maintain their vehicles better than do passenger car owners, and tend not to ride them as much in inclement weather.

Also enclosed is a copy of an ETL report showing that the glass cover complies with the light stability, luminous transmittance, impact, fracture and abrasion resistance tests of Z26.1. In the past, both AAMVA and California Highway Patrol have issued certificates of approval on the cover glass, as well as the whole lamp (including the cover glass).

We are not aware of any field experience indicating any problems with discoloration or cracks in the cover glass, or deterioration of the reflector.

Also, as we agreed in our meeting, we are attaching the names and addresses of owners in the Washington, D.C. area of older BMW motorcycles fitted with such covers whom you may wish to contact. This information is being provided to enable you to examine the headlamp/cover assemblies of these older motorcycles to determine what, if any, deterioration in headlamp performance can be attributed to age. This would aid you in the formulation of future proposed rulemaking should you later decide some durability require-ment may be appropriate for such lamp/cover assemblies.

Aside from a perceived (but not demonstrated) durability concern on NHTSA's part with respect to headlamp covers generally, the primary reason repeatedly given by NHTSA in opposition to such covers is their effect on mechanical aimers. Obviously, with a motorcycle there is no such concern since motorcycle headlamps can not be mechanically aimed because mechanical aiming requires the use of two headlamps, while motorcycles are permitted to have only one headlamp. This is the reason a motorcycle headlamp is not required to have the three aiming pads mounted on the lens.

In conclusion, we believe the interpretation contained in the December 8, 1982 Berndt letter is in error, particularly as it would apply to motorcycles equipped with headlamps conforming to SAE J584, as specified by Table III in FMVSS 108. Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

DE/fw 0510 - 83 Attachments

Owners of older BMW motorcycles having cover glass in front of headlamp who are willing to have their headlamps examined:

David Gray 1977 BMW RS 305 Tapawingo Road Vienna, VA 22180 Telephone: 703 938-0060

Robert Henig 1977 BMW RS 11800 Dewey Road 35,000 miles Wheaton, MD 20906 Telephone: 301 942-5198

George R. Sams 1979 BMW RT 1104 Tyler Avenue 21,000 miles Annapolis, MD 21403 Telephone: 301 267-3487 Bus.

301 263-9473 Home