ID: nht81-1.28

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Smith Industries Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. W. W. Bischoff Divisional Technical Director Smith Industries Limited Vehicle Instrumentation Division Cricklewood Works, London, England NW2 6NN

Dear Mr. Bischoff:

This responds to your letter of January 28, 1981 to John W. Carson regarding Safety Standard No. 127, Speedometers and Odometers. You asked whether the encapsulation requirements of this standard (S4.2.5.2) are satisfied if a speedometer is housed in a metal case and sealed by a window and a spun-over metal bezel.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.) to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination.

The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. We must see the equipment in question, or at least pictures or drawings of the equipment design, to render a judgment.

Please contact this office if you have more questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

28th January 1981

Mr. John W. Carson, Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington DC 20590

Dear Sir,

Re: FMVSS 127, Speedometers and Odometers Final Rule (Docket 76-06, Notice 9)

Please advise by return whether the odometer tamper resistant requirement is satisfied relative to the 'Access to the odometer requirement', for a speedometer housed in a metal case and sealed by a window and spun over metal bezel.

Thank you.

Yours truly, for: Smiths Industries Limited

W.W. BISCHOFF Divisional Technical Director

ID: nht81-1.29

DATE: 03/05/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 30, 1981. According to your letter, you have been told that Federal motor vehicle safety standards are only "Federal Specifications" and not considered to be "Federal laws". You have heard it said that a "side marker lamp is not an 'illegal lamp'" simply because it does not meet the photometric requirements specified in Table 3, Column 5 of DOT 108 (SAE J592e July 1972). You have asked our opinion on the matter.

We are glad to set the matter straight. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are regulations issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an agency of the Department of Transportation, in implementation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In that Act, Congress provided this agency with authority to specify requirements to be met by motor vehicles and equipment, and these requirements have the force of Federal law. The Act provides for a civil penalty and injunctive sanctions if the standards and other implementing regulations are not met. It is unimportant what people call the Act and standards, as long as they realize their purpose and the consequences of noncompliance.

Standard No. 108 is unusual in that it only requires that lighting equipment be designed to conform, rather than per se conform. In this sense, the failure of a single side marker lamp to meet the photometric requirements incorporated into Standard No. 108 may not necessarily be considered a noncompliance but a larger number of failing lamps could cause NHTSA to question the adequacy of the lamp's design and conclude that a noncompliance existed meriting notification and remedy.

I hope that this explanation is helpful to you.

SINCERELY,

January 30, 1981

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We have been told that Department of Transportation standards, and specifically DOT 108, are only "Federal Specifications" and are not now and have never been considered to be federal laws.

We have read comments made to this effect and have heard it said that a side marker lamp is not an "illegal lamp" simply because it does not meet the photometric requirements specified in Table 3, Column 5 of DOT 108 (SAE J592E July 1972).

Would you be kind enough to forward to me NHTSA's opinion on this matter.

Your early response is most urgently requested.

WESBAR CORPORATION

Bernard R. Weber Senior Vice President

ID: nht81-1.3

DATE: 01/13/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of October 14, 1980, regarding the warning devices required by Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, and Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You ask whether the sound of a voice repeating the phrase "please pull out the ignition key" or "please fasten seat belt" at 2-3 second intervals could be used to satisfy the requirements of Standard No. 114 and Standard No. 208. You also ask whether a buzzer or chime that signals an unfastened seat belt or the presence of the key in the ignition could also be used to give the driver other warnings, such as turning off the headlights.

Standard No. 114 does not specify the nature of the warning that must be given to the driver in the event that the ignition key is left in the locking system. Thus the system you describe would comply with the rule. Note that the signal must be activated whenever the key has been left in the ignition and the driver's door is opened.

Standard No. 208 requires that the driver's seating position be equipped with a warning system that activates a continuous or intermittent audible signal for a period of not less than four (4) seconds and not more than eight (8) seconds. The signal must begin when the vehicle's ignition switch is in the "on" or "start" position and the driver's belt is not in use. If the system you have devised stops the warning only when the belt has been fastened, it would not comply with this rule. The signal must end within eight (8) seconds, irregardless of whether the driver's belt has been fastened. Regarding your specific question, an audible "voice" signal would be permitted under the standard.

The buzzers or chimes that are installed in accordance with Standard No. 214 or Standard No. 208 may also be used to warn the driver of other conditions.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any other questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION

October 14, 1980

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir;

Subject: Warning Device for FMVSS 114 and 208

This letter is for getting your interpretation to the following questions concerning the warning devices required by FMVSS 114 and 208.

1. Is it considered as complying with the requirements to use the voice sound such as "please pull out ignition key" or "please fasten seat belt" which is activated repeatedly with 2 or 3 seconds pause?

In order to avoid customers' unpleasant impression due to abrupt cut-off of the voice when the instruction is followed, these warning voices would be ceased after completing the phrase.

2. In case when adopting buzzer or chime sound as the warning of FMVSS 114 or 208, could the same sound be utilized as other additional warnings such as the headlamp turning-off?

For any questions regarding this letter, please contact with the following representative of ours in the U.S.A. and mail your response to him.

T. Shimada -- Senior Technical Manager, MMC Services Inc.; 3000 TOWN CENTER; SUITE 1960; SOUTHFIELD, MICHIGAN 48075; TELEPHONE NUMBER: 313/353-5444

Your early response would be highly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Hidemi Ohya, Manager -- Homologation & Technical Liaison Section, Technical Administration Department

ID: nht81-1.30

DATE: 03/05/81 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: P. SOARDO -- ISTITUTO ELETTROTECNICI NAZIONALE GALILEO FERRARIS TORINO, ITALY

COPYEE: AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NOA-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11/28/80 FROM P. SOARDO TO NHTSA RE REAPPROVAL OF LIGHTING DEVICES, FEDERAL STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Professor Soardo:

Your letter of November 28, 1980 has just arrived, in which you asked about State approval of lighting devices.

Each State has its own requirements and method of proceeding, and these are independent of U.S. governmental requirements. Therefore, I regret to say, we are unable to answer this question, and it should be asked of the particular State in which you have an interest. However, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administration may be able to answer this question and we are sending a copy of your letter to it for direct reply.

You have also asked what Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires "when a car is no longer manufactured, but... lighting devices are available as spare parts". Standard No. 108 applies not only to motor vehicles but also requires compliance of lighting equipment manufactured to replace lighting equipment originally installed on a motor vehicle pursuant to Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

ID: nht81-1.32

DATE: 03/10/81

FROM: STEPHEN W. MATSON -- TRADE SERVICES INC

TO: CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/25/81 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO STEPHEN W. MATSON; REDBOOK A22, STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sir:

This letter is to formally request your review and interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 as it relates to the placement of a clear lens cover in front of a motorcycle headlamp. The attached drawings demonstrate the specific concept in question.

Information contained in SAE standards referenced in Table III of FMVSS 108 indicates that a specific prohibition exists regarding a headlamp lens cover for passenger cars, multipurpose vehicles, trucks and busses. The SAE Motorcycle Headlamp Standard (SAE J584) contains no such prohibition. It is our understanding that a component configuration such as the one illustrated would not conflict with SAE referenced requirements.

Another section of FMVSS 108 which could relate to this issue is Paragraph S4.1.3 which states that "No . . . . automotive equipment shall be installed that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." If, when the secondary lens in question is in place, the photometric requirements of FMVSS 108 can be met or exceeded, the lens cover would then be compatible with the standard.

Detailed review of FMVSS 108 and the other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have revealed no other requirements germane to this issue.

Your review of our analysis will be most appreciated. We feel that the proposed concept is in keeping with the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Hopefully your review will confirm our opinion. Should you have any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

ENC

ID: nht81-1.33

DATE: 03/10/81

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DONALD W. VIERIMAA -- DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING TRUCK TRAILER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TITLE: NOA-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 02/09/81 FROM DONALD W. VIERIMAA TO FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA, EXCLUSION OF THE TOWBAR OF A PERMANENT TRAILER DOLLY FROM THE FMVSS 108 LENGTH CRITERIA; LETTER DATED 04/04/73 FROM RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA TO PAUL K. WILSON

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vierimaa:

This is to reply to your letter of February 9, 1981 asking for "exclusion of the towbar of a permanent trailer dolly from the FMVSS 108 length criteria."

As you indicated, an opinion by this office in 1973 excluded converter dollies and their integral towbar from inclusion in computation of the overall length of trailers (i.e. S4.1.1.3 which excludes intermediate side marker lamps on vehicles less than 30 feet in overall length). Even though a trailer might be manufactured with a permanent dolly, its function is identical to that of a converter dolly and there is no reason to distinguish one from the other for purpose of computation of overall length. Therefore, overall length may be computed exclusive of either the dolly or the tongue.

Sincerely,

ID: nht81-1.34

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Retreaders' Association, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 17, 1980, to the Office of Chief Counsel presenting a problem that has occurred recently with the importation of retreadable casings.

You noted that for the last 12 years this agency has allowed the importation of 150,000 to 200,000 truck casings annually but, "suddenly and without notice" in September 1980, prohibited importation of casings not labelled with the letter DOT and the manufacturer's identification symbol which are required by Standard No. 119. You also pointed out that there is no Federal motor vehicle safety standard covering retreading of truck tires but that after retreading "they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49." Finally, you have indicated that there is a demand for the casings "by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators."

As I am sure you realize, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the importation of motor vehicles and equipment that were not manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, whether those vehicles or equipment are new or used. We have no knowledge of the importation of noncomplying used truck tires without bond. We can only act on those importations reported by the Customs Service.

Standard No. 119 is the applicable standard covering truck tires, and one of its requirements is that truck tires bear the label DOT. The standard, however, has only been in effect since March 1, 1975 (the last 6 years). The prohibition on the importation of nonconforming tires manufactured after the effective date of Standard No. 119 may well not have been much of an issue until recently because sufficient numbers of used tires manufactured before the effective date were available for importation. Now that pre-March 1, 1975 tires are becoming progressively scarcer, importers are presumably turning increasingly to post-March 1975 tires.

Your comment that after retreading the tires comply with Part 574 is of interest. Under S574.5, "the DOT symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable . . ." We have advised that the DOT symbol be buffed off truck tire casings before retreading to avoid confusion on the part of interested parties that the tire might meet some nonexistent safety standard.

Importers of truck tire casings that do not bear the symbol "DOT" have two options for release of conformity bond. They may provide a statement from the original manufacturer that the tires, as originally produced, met the applicable standard. Alternatively, they may provide a verifiable serial numbering system from the original manufacturer to demonstrate that the tires were manufactured prior to the applicable standard.

In a telephone conversation with Taylor Vinson of this office on January 12, 1981, you asked whether importers could test the casings after entry to verify conformance as a means of satisfying the requirements of 19 CFR 1280(b)(1)(iii). The answer is a qualified yes. Certainly NHTSA would accept meaningful test data with respect to the tire tested. The problem lies in extrapolating these data to other tires of the same manufacturer. As you know, most tire manufacturers as part of their quality control program test tires at random to ensure continuing compliance with Standard Nos. 109 and 119. Thus, an importer's test data might be acceptable to NHTSA with respect to similar tires produced nearly contemporaneously with those tested, but not acceptable with respect to tires produced farther away in time. If your members chose to pursue this method of demonstrating conformance, each case would be treated on an ad hoc basis.

One further possibility is suggested by your letter if the tires do not comply with Standard No. 119. There is an implication that the primary use of these tires is in off-road applications, "gravel, coal, and mining truck operations." If the importers would be willing to submit an affidavit that the tires, after retreading, will be sold to those purchasers that will use them on private property and not the public roads, then we would consider admission on such basis. Where similar affidavits have been previously submitted, we might seek information from the affiant regarding the actual use of the tires covered by those prior affidavits.

If further questions are raised, I would be happy to answer them.

SINCERELY,

November 17, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219

Gentlemen:

Subject: Imported Retreadable Casings

Re: Title 19 Customs Duties, Chapter 1, U. S. Customs Service, 12.80

Worn casings suitable only for retreading and use on vehicles other than passenger cars have been imported by retreaders and importers who resell them for approximately fifteen years.

These casings have been cleared by customs during this period of time without question or delay. The casings are predominantly of Japanese manufacture and are eminently suitable for retreading. The casings are 10.00-20 bias and radial ply. All are extra ply. The bias ply are load range G (14 ply rating) and the radial ply are load range H (16 ply rating) manufactured for use, when new, on Japanese busses. The bus companies remove the worn tires and re-sell them. The tires are manufactured by companies such as Bridgestone, Yokohama, Sumitomo, Toyo and Ohtsu.

Worn casings, because they are load range G and H, are not available in the United States in sufficient quantities to meet the demand by companies such as gravel, coal and mining truck operators, that operate under severe conditions.

The predominant types of worn tires of U.S. manufacture available to such operators are load range F (12 ply rating) for bias ply and load range G (14 ply rating) for radial ply.

Imported worn casings have been retreaded for the past fifteen years and have performed to the satisfaction of the user. Had they not done so, they would no longer have been accepted. The relationship between retreader and customer is such that the retreader must give a verbal or written warranty that his product, the retreaded casing, will give satisfactory service and be free from defects in workmanship and material for the life of the retreaded casing, which is a guarantee equal to or better than that offered by new tire manufacturers in the United States.

The imported casings do not, in general, indicate compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 119 by the letters DOT and manufacturer's mark. There is not a standard governing the retreading of tires for use on vehicles other than passenger cars. FMVSS 117 applies only to retreaded pneumatic tires for passenger cars. Standard 119 regulates only new tires. Therefore, the 13,800,000 truck retreads produced each year might or might not be manufactured on a casing that meets the standard 119, even though these retreads can and do meet the test requirements of MVSS 119. Additional proof is in their performance on the highway. Further, tests conducted under the auspices of the American Retreaders Association by Dr. S. K. Clark of the University of Michigan proved that the strength of a worn truck tire is the same as a comparable new tire.

As of September 1980, the DOT, NHTSA suddenly and without notice initiated activity under title 19, Customs Duties, Chapter 1, United States Customs Office, Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1980, Par. 12.80 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

This activity was specifically directed against imported truck casings, even though the customs service had been permitting entry without restrictions since the promulgation of this standard, January 1, 1968. The logical question would be why wait over twelve years to direct its application to imported worn casings?

During this period of time, a sorely needed source of retreadable truck casings has been developed. The economics are there. A truck operator can purchase a retreaded casing for one-third to one-half the price of a new tire and will use retreads whenever possible. The economics justify it. The imported casings, although they are motor vehicle equipment, are not suitable for application to motor vehicles until they are re-manufactured through retreading, at which time they comply with the tire identification and record keeping requirements of Title 49. The manufacturers mark appears on the retreaded casing.

We respectfully request that you rescind this sudden requirement, continuing to allow importation of worn truck casings in the same manner as you have in the past twelve years. In lieu of this, you should allow at least 180 days for the importers to make whatever arrangements will be necessary to bring imported casings into compliance.

At this point in time, we estimate there are approximately 150,000 to 200,000 worn truck casings imported annually. Compare this to the 13,800,000 total and imports are a small percentage. To the small businessman who is a retreader who buys 200-300 of these casings, it is an important item for him and his customers.

We look forward to your approval of our request.

Arden H. Faris Assistant Director

ID: nht81-1.35

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Yasui & Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

In reply refer to: NOA-30

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

Dear Mr. Shirai:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht81-1.36

DATE: 03/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 11 1981

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

Dear Mr. Gerkin:

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

S5.2.3.2 provides, in part, that:

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

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

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

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

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

January 8, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Don Gerken Product Engineer

rm

ID: nht81-1.37

DATE: 03/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: ABCO, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This reponds to your letter of November 24, 1980 to Joan Griffin of my staff regarding the use of Lexan Margard as a glazing material in off-road heavy equipment, such as farm equipment and logging operations vehicles. Please accept our apologies for the lateness of this reply. In your letter, you asked whether an off-road vehicle equipped with a Lexan Margard windshield may be driven on public roads for the purpose of reaching a new job site. You also asked in which locations on a vehicle Lexan Margard may be used. You state that you are a "Fabricator-Distributor," i.e., that you purchase flat Margard sheeting, machine it to size, and ship it to heavy equipment manufacturers and owners.

The first issue that must be resolved in answering your questions is whether an off-road equipment vehicle is a "motor vehicle." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues safety standards governing "motor vehicles." Thus, Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, applies to a vehicle only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. @ 1381 et seq.) (the Act). Section 102(3) of the Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(3)) defines "motor vehicle" as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We cannot determine, on the basis of the information you have provided, whether the vehicles in question are motor vehicles within the meaning of the Act. However, we have enclosed some guidelines that should enable you to make your own decision. Please contact this office if you have any questions about a specific vehicle.

If a piece of off-road heavy equipment is not a "motor vehicle," NHTSA has no authority over the vehicle, and Safety Standard No. 205 is inapplicable. In this case, any type of glazing material may be used in the vehicle. However, you should check with the appropriate state agency to determine whether there are any local regulations regarding the type of glazing that may be used in such equipment, and whether such a vehicle can use the public roads.

If a vehicle is a "motor vehicle," the glazing used in that vehicle must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for glazing materials to be used in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.1-1966 (ANS Z26). ANS Z26 lists 13 "Items" or types of glazing that vary in terms of the performance tests each item must pass and the locations in which each type of glazing may be used. Two items of glazing may be used in the windshield of a motor vehicles: Item 1, Safety Glazing Materials for Use Anywhere In Motor Vehicle, and Item 10, Bullet Resistant Glass for Use Anywhere in Motor Vehicle. Lexan Margard clearly does not qualify as bullet resistant glazing material. Thus the second issue that must be addressed in response to your first question (assuming that the vehicles you are fitting with glazing material are motor vehicles under the Act) is whether Lexan Margard qualifies as Item 1 glazing.

NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination. However, the agency is willing to give an informal opinion concerning whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. This opinion is not binding on you or the agency. It is our understanding that Lexan Margard does not qualify as Item 1 glazing because it fails Test No. 18, Abrasion Resistance. In response to your second question, we do not know whether Lexan qualifies as other Items of glazing. Your supplier may be able to provide you with more accurate information.

If Lexan Margard does not meet all the tests for Item 1 glazing, then your sale of a Lexan Margard windshield to a vehicle manufacturer for installation in a motor vehicle violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act. Your customer is also in violation of this section of the Act if he sells a motor vehicle equipped with a Lexan Margard windshield. NHTSA has no authority over the operation of motor vehicles, only over the manufacture and sale of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

Should you determine that Lexan Margard meets the requirements of Item 1 glazing and you wish to sell Lexan windshields for installation in motor vehicles, Standard No. 205 imposes specific certification and marking requirements on you as a Fabricator-Distributor of automotive glazing. These requirements can be found in Paragraphs S6.4 and S6.5.

We hope you find this information helpful and not too confusing. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 24, 1980

Joan Griffin -- N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Ms. Griffin:

This letter will confirm our telephone conversation of November 20, 1980 concerning legal documents related to the use of Lexan Margard (Polycarbonate sheet with an abrasion resistant coating) as a glazing material for off-road heavy equipment.

I must review and evaluate all related documents and prepare for a presentation to some major equipment companys within two to three weeks.

Our position is that of Fabricator-Distributor. We buy flat Margard sheeting from General Electric, machine it to size and ship it to both heavy equipment manufacturers and owners.

The equipment that we supply is generally used off-road. Is it legal to operate these vehicles on public roads for the purpose of reaching a new job site if the primary windshield is Lexan? May they be used on roads not yet open for traffic? In which windows is Lexan Margard legally documented for use?

Any information about legal vehicular applications of this glazing material would be invaluable to us. Time is important. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

Miles B. Mueller -- ABCO, Inc.