ID: 1983-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 15, 1982 letter regarding the applicability of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, to two proposed cowl designs.

FMVSS 219 provides that no part of a vehicle outside the occupant compartment, "except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," may penetrate a specified protected zone template on the windshield during a vehicle test crash. In your letter, you present two possible vehicle designs in which the cowl would directly contact the windshield. In one design, the contact would occur across most of the width of the windshield, while in the other, the contact occurs only at the outside edges of the cowl.

Both designs appear to fall within the exception in the standard for components "designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," and therefore the cowl would be permitted to penetrate the protected zone template. Nevertheless, I should mention that your second design does raise some concerns. It is difficult to determine from the drawings enclosed with your letter the extent of the windshield-cowl contact in your second design. If this contact were for such a short distance that it would be apparent that the design was intended to circumvent FMVSS 219 by establishing only minimal contact, the agency would consider taking appropriate action to assure that the intent of the standard is carried out.

SINCERELY,

MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC. Detroit Office

November 15, 1982

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda respectfully submits this letter to request an interpretation of the requirements (S5.) of FMVSS 219, Winshield Zone Intrusion. The requirement states, ". . . . .No part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, . . . . . . . . . . ."

Mazda is developing a new model in which the cowl, by design, contacts the lower portion of the windshield. There are two designs being considered, as shown in the attached sketches.

According to our interpretation of the standard, the cowl would be part of "other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield".

We would appreciate your interpretation with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

H. Nakaya Manager

CASE I - Complete contact with windshield

Windshield

CASE II - Partial contact with windshield (contact at left and right side)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: cmc4935car_carrier

Massoud S. Tavakoli, Ph.D. , P.E.
Savage Engineering, Inc.
132 N. Leroy Street
Fenton, MI 48430

Dear Dr. Tavakoli:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry as to whether a motor vehicle you designed to transport other motor vehicles is subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) Nos. 223, Rear impact guards, and 224, Rear impact protection. As explained below, the vehicle you described is not subject to these standards.

In your letter, you described a vehicle that you refer to as a "roll-back car carrier."You stated that the vehicle is a single-unit truck that is at least 10,000 lb in weight. You explained that the vehicle has a flat bed that can be rolled back and tilted down so that another vehicle can be pulled on the bed. In addition, you state that the vehicle is equipped with a wheel-lift device that is used to tow vehicles behind the truck in a "more traditional way. "

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has authority to establish regulations for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment (see 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301). To reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries that occur when light duty vehicles collide with the rear end of trailers and semitrailers, we established FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224. FMVSS No. 224 requires most trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or more to be equipped with rear impact guards that comply with the requirements set forth in FMVSS No. 223. Vehicles other than trailers and semitrailers are not subject to FMVSS No. 224.

The agency defines a trailer as:

[A] motor vehicle with or without motive power, designed for carrying persons or property and for being drawn by another motor vehicle.

(49 CFR 571.3(b)). A semitrailer is a subclass of trailer and is defined as:

[A] trailer, except a pole trailer, so constructed that a substantial part of its weight rests upon or is carried by another motor vehicle.

(49 CFR 571.3(b)).

The vehicle described in your letter is a straight truck and is not designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle. Therefore it is not a trailer or semitrailer. As your vehicle is not a trailer or semitrailer, it is not subject to FMVSS No. 224.

Your e-mail also inquired into the applicability of related Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) regulations. We are unable to speak to the applicability of these regulations and suggest you contact FMCSA directly. The general number for FMCSA is (202) 366-2519.

I hope you find this letter helpful. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:224
d.9/22/04

ID: 1984-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Deane; Snowdon; Shutler & Gherardi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

John Russell Deane III Deane, Snowdon, Shutler & Gherardi 1607 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009

Dear Mr. Deane:

This responds to your letter of May 15, 1984, to Stephen Oesch of my staff, concerning Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. The following discussion addresses the agency's interpretation of the standard that you discussed with Mr. Oesch and the question concerning the luminous transmittance requirements in passenger cars that you raised in your letter.

You are correct that the standard regulates the glazing installed in motor vehicles and that the agency has stated that window coverings, such as solar tinting film, are not glazing for the purposes of the standard. You are also correct that the anti-tampering requirement of section 108(a)(2)(A) preclude the installation of window coverings by certain individuals, if the installation would render inoperative the glazing materials compliance with Standard No. 205. Finally, you are correct that the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205 do not apply to windows behind the driver in buses, multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's) and trucks when those windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

The issue of whether Standard No. 205 would preempt a State standard on window covering must be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As a general matter, Standard No. 205 would not preempt State laws on window covering unless those laws appear to authorize the installation of window coverings on a new vehicle prior to its first sale and the installation of the window covering would mean that the vehicle's glazing no longer complies with Standard. No. 205. As to the abrasion resistance requirements of Standard No. 205, while you are correct that they do not directly apply to window coverings, the installation of a window covering on a vehicle may render inoperative the glazing's compliance with the abrasion resistance requirements of the standard.

Finally, you requested information concerning the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. Subsequent to your meeting, Mr. Oesch provided you with the agency's interpretation letter of February 15, 1974, concerning windows in a passenger car which are requisite for driving visibility. The reason that the agency distinguishes between the luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars and those for buses, MPV's and trucks is due to the differing rearward visibility requirements set in Standard No. 111, Rearview Mirrors for those different types of vehicles. Standard No. 111 requires all passenger cars to have an inside rearview mirror, so it is necessary to ensure that the rear window of a passenger car has sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to use the rearview mirror. Unlike MPV's, buses and trucks, passenger cars are not required to have an outside rearview mirror on the passenger's side. Therefore, the agency believes that the side windows to the rear of the driver of a passenger car must have sufficient luminous transmittance to allow the driver to have an adequate view through those windows to the rear of the car.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Stephen L. Oesch Chief Counsel General Law Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me on Thursday, May 10, 1984 to discuss certain interpretations of FMVSS 205. As I mentioned during our meeting, I represent the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA) which numbers among its members most of the manufacturers of various decorative window coverings. We have for some time attempted to develop objectively stated standards for use by the states in their regulation of these products. One of our manufacturer's major problems is the lack of uniformity in the state standards. We were successful in having the VESC adopt a model standard and have attempted to have that standard enacted by law or regulation in as many states as possible.

We are concerned that certain problems regarding state standards may have been exacerbated by certain correspondence between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and various state authorities. Specifically, this correspondence includes the letters from Hugh Oates to Paul J. Phillipson, dated February 17, 1983 and from Frank Berndt to B. E. Diehl, dated December 20, 1983.

While the message conveyed by those letters may have been misinterpreted, I believe that SEMA and your office agree on the current interpretation of FMVSS 205, except in one regard. First, FMVSS 205 covers within its scope window glazing which is installed in various vehicles and does not regulate the use of various window coverings. It is clear, however, that the antitampering provisions of the law would preclude the use of various materials by certain individuals, if the use of such materials would render inoperative the safety standard in question. Second, in its present form, FMVSS 205 is not preemptive of state laws which seek to deal with window covering products since the federal standard does not deal with such products. Third, FMVSS 205 does not impose the abrasion test on window covering materials. This is the case inasmuch as the standard does not apply to such window covering materials, and even if it did, the abrasion test is inapplicable to window glazing utilized in locations where there is no requirement for luminous transmittance. Our final point of agreement is that FMVSS 205 does not require luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver in multipurpose passenger vehicles vans and trucks where such windows are not requisite for driving visibility.

It would appear that the only area where we do not yet agree is with regard to the requirement for luminous transmittance through windows behind the driver of a passenger car. I believe that, as is the case with MPV, there is no requirement for luminous transmittance unless the window is requisite for driving visibility.

During our meeting I had requested that you provide me with copies of various documents where the policy of NHTSA had been expressed on the issue of luminous transmittance requirements for passenger cars. I had also requested any materials that you might have which discuss the rationale for a distinction between passenger cars and MPVs. Further, if it is possible to delineate any concerns which might warrant a distinction between MPV and passenger cars, it would be very helpful to us in finding ways of dealing with such concerns.

After we have had an opportunity to review the materials which you are providing us, I would very much appreciate having the opportunity to discuss the issue with you further. In the meantime, if there are any materials which we have which might be of use to you, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you again for meeting with me and for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

JOHN RUSSELL DEANE III cc: Calvin Hill Roger Greene Chuck Blum Bob Burch

ID: 1984-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Services Division United States Testing Company, Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You asked several questions about the requirements applicable to Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor utilizing a tension reducer device. The particular device you are concerned about is, according to your letter, activated by the vehicle door. With the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode; with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.

By way of background information, this agency does not grant approvals of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 209 specifies requirements concerning minimum and maximum retraction force. Requirements are specified for both initial retraction force and retraction force after a test sequence which includes lengthy retractor cycling. See sections S4.3(j), (k) and S5.2(k).

As you know, retractors have traditionally had only one rather than two tension modes. Standard No. 209 does not prohibit a design with two tension modes. However, as written, the standard's requirements do not distinguish between tension modes.

We agree with your suggestion that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in the standard. However, we do not agree with your suggestion that the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force and the low tension mode for maximum retraction force. Instead, because Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, we interpret the standard to require that all of its requirements must be met in both tension modes. For example, under section S4.3(j)(6), both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the 0.2 to 1.5 pound range. For testing purposes, of course, a single retractor could only be fully tested for one of the two modes, since testing for both modes would involve twice the amount of cycling required by the standard.

Your letter states that since the high tension mode is used only for stowing the webbing and is not in operation during normal use, you believe that only cycling tests without lock-ups should be performed in testing. While we appreciate this argument, the standard, as written, does not permit that exception. Section S5.2(k) states in relevant part:

attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. The locking mechanism of an emergency locking retractor shall be actuated at least 10,000 times within 50 to 100 percent extension of webbing during the 50,000 cycles....

Since the standard does not distinguish between tension modes, lock-ups should be performed in testing for both the low and high tension modes.

As already noted, the retractor in question represents a new design which was not specifically considered in drafting Standard No. 209. If the standard as written creates problems, the manufacturer may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend the standard to establish special test procedures.

Your letter suggests that there may be a conflict between section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209's 0.2 pound retraction force requirement (section S4.3(j)). However, section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208 only applies to automatic belt systems, while section S5.3(j) of Standard No. 209 only applies to active belt systems. Therefore, there can be no conflict.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 12, 1983

Mr. William Smith National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th St., S.W. Room 5320 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smith:

Some questions have been raised pertaining to the requirements relating to retraction force and lock-up distance on Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractors utilizing a tension reducer device (comfort type mechanism). This particular device is activated by the vehicle door; with the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode; with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.

The purpose of measuring retraction force is to insure that two (2) separate requirements are met.

1. Retraction force is high enough to sufficiently retract the webbing to its normal stowed position (Minimum Requirement).

2. Retraction force is not so high as to cause discomfort to the user (Maximum Requirement).

Since the referenced tension reducer is activated solely by door position, and the user has no manual control of the tension reducer operation, a question is raised pertaining to retraction force requirements.

We feel that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in FMVSS 209. That is; High Tension Mode -minimum retraction force requirements and Low Tension Mode - maximum retraction force requirement.

However, this raises another question on FMVSS 209 minimum requirements for retractor force for Type 2 Assemblies (0.2 lbs.). In FMVSS #208 proposed requirements for Comfort and Convenience, slack is allowed to be introduced in the webbing (S7.4.2.) provided that it is cancelled when the adjacent door is opened. This appears to be in contradiction of the 0.2 lbs. retraction force requirement of FMVSS 209 when utilizing a tension reducer type of retractor. Therefore, it seems, that since the tension reducer type of retractor is designed strictly for comfort, and not to induce slack, only 50% loss in retraction effort requirement after cycling should be pertinent.

The purpose of retractor cycling is to determine if the retractor will perform satisfactorily during repeated use and that spring tension does not change significantly as well as its ability to lock-up.

Since the high tension mode is used only for stowing the webbing and is not in operation during normal use, we feel that only cycling tests without lock-ups need be performed in accordance with FMVSS #209.

The low tension mode is the portion of the retractor that will perform during impact conditions and therefore should require standard cycling with lock-ups.

Therefore, we feel an interpretation of the adequacy of the minimum retraction force requirement pertaining to Comfort and Convenience type mechanisms is necessary. Also do both tension modes have to satisfy the Retractor Performance requirement of FMVSS #209.

We would appreciate your review of the above comments and your interpretation of same.

Very truly yours,

UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC.

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President FP/na

ID: nht80-1.16

DATE: 02/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BF Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 29, 1979, letter asking about brake adjustments prior to testing for compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In your letter, you ask that the agency permit up to three adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

By letter of interpretation and by preamble to our November 1974 Federal Register Notice (39 FR 39880), adjustments were permitted during the burnish procedures in S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 for the purpose of controlling brake temperature. According to agency information at the time of those interpretations, controlling brake temperature was the only reason that would require the use of brake adjustments during burnish. In a subsequent letter to the agency, you requested that we modify that position in light of your experience with disc brakes and their need for adjustment during burnish for dynamometer testing for reasons other than temperature control. The agency denied that request in April of 1979 while suggesting that the NHTSA would reconsider if more supporting data were supplied.

In response to the agency's request for more data, you have submitted another request for interpretation. To support this request, you have provided information in your letter and have also provided other information directly to our technical staff. As a result of this information, the agency agrees that adjustments during the burnish procedures may be necessary for reasons other than temperature control. Accordingly, the agency will permit adjustments during the burnish procedures for the sections cited above for any reason.

The standard presently is silent on the issue of how many brake adjustments may be made during burnish. As discussed with you and your staff we are considering limiting the number of adjustments to three during the burnish tests. However, no limitation is in effect at this time. The agency will undertake rulemaking shortly to limit the number of adjustments during burnish and encourages manufacturers to limit adjustments to three in the interim.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 29, 1979 FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter comments on and is in regard to your correspondence of April 27, 1979 to Mr. D.L. Haines; the Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter dated January 24, 1979 also to Mr. D.L. Haines; the BFGoodrich letter of January 15, 1979 to Mr. Tad Herlihy; and the BFGoodrich letter of November 8, 1978 to Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

BFGoodrich reviewed your interpretation of FMVSS 121, Paragraph S5.3, S5.4, and S6.1.8 and S6.2.2 regarding brake adjustment during burnish. In summary, you state that brake adjustments may be made during burnish, but only to control brake temperature.

In reference to that interpretation, BFGoodrich submits the following observations and comments.

1. The intent of our original inquiry, dated November 8, 1978, was to ensure that the BFGoodrich interpretation of FMVSS 121 with regard to adjustment during burnish was correct.

2. Mr. Levin's response of January 24, 1979, which postdated our letters of November 8, 1978 and January 15, 1979, was originally thought to be a reply to BFGoodrich correspondence and was interpreted as supporting our position that adjustment during the burnish sequence is not restricted.

3. Your letter of April 27, 1979 declined to support our position but suggested that NHTSA would consider data and information that would indicate that the NHTSA position on this matter might be too narrow.

4. Your letter of April 27, 1979 also stated that "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unaware of a reason other than control of brake temperature which would justify adjustments during burnish." BFGoodrich establishes that reason for adjustment by means of the information presented in the following paragraphs.

A. A review of our Vehicle testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 (including sections recently deleted for trucks and trailers in response to the 9th Circuit remand) has shown that vehicles using the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake can meet all performance criteria without brake adjustment during the burnish sequence.

B. A review of BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake dynamometer testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 has shown that the dynamometer tests can be completed and meet all performance criteria. However, during burnish, as a flat and fully mated lining/disk interface is established, a maximum of three brake adjustments is required to maintain burnish decelerations.

C. The burnish procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 appear to be tailored to the needs of drum brakes equipped with organic linings. The primary need is to cure the "green" organic lining in preparation to meeting the actual performance requirements of the standard.

D. The burnishing requirements for the BFGoodrich disk brake are significantly different due to the fact that its metallic lining material requires minimal conditioning. For example, the BFGoodrich disk brake lining can be conditioned after 100 dynamometer burnish stops (and many times with as few as 50) to successfully complete the performance requirements. Such an abbreviated burnish sequence requires no brake adjustments between any burnish stops.

In presenting the foregoing data, we feel we have established a reason for an interpretation which is supportive of our position that adjustment during burnish is acceptable. In our particular case, the reason and need is limited to the dynamometer burnish in which we require a maximum of three burnish adjustments in order to complete a full burnish sequence. Parenthetically, it should be noted that an abbreviated dynamometer burnish sequence of 100 stops can be accomplished with our disk brake without brake adjustment between burnish stops. In either case, the actual performance testing following the dynamometer burnish can be successfully completed.

Listed below is a summary of the BFGoodrich viewpoints on this matter:

* There is no clear basis for the no-adjustment-during-burnish interpretation in the wording of FMVSS 121 as applied to disk brakes.

* The above position is strengthened by the interpretive precedent. established in November of 1974, which allowed adjustment during burnish to control brake temperature (reference the Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter of January 24, 1979).

* The burnish procedure is preceived as a preparation for testing and not a performance requirement in itself.

* Technical criteria used in establishing the burnish sequences appear to be based only on drum brake experience and requirements, and that criteria is not necessarily representative of the burnish requirements of other braking technologies such as the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake.

* No degradation of performance requirements are suffered by allowing adjustment during burnish.

In light of the above and for the reasons noted earlier, BFGoodrich requests a reconsideration or modification to the previous interpretation which would allow up to three brake adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

If the Department still feels that there is insufficient reasoning to reconsider the current interpretation and additional discussion is required, please advise me as to a date that you will be available to review this issue.

Sincerely,

THE B F GOODRICH COMPANY -- Engineered Products Group;

Jack D. Rainbolt -- Chief Engineer, Air Disk Brakes, Transportation Division

cc: K. M. Ryan

ID: 07-004355as

ID: nht79-2.40

DATE: 05/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 28, 1979, asking two questions with respect to certification of lighting equipment by use of the DOT symbol, as permitted by S4.7.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Your first question is whether disassembled parts such as lenses, screws, or bulbs must also be certified as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The answer is no; only the completed lamp assembly must be so certified.

You have also asked "in the case of lamp lens incorporated with reflex reflector do we have to label the DOT label on this reflex reflector certifying it meets FMVSS?" The answer is yes. Although the lamp lens is not a required equipment item and not certified since it is only part of a lamp, the reflex reflector incorporated in it must be certified since the reflector is an item required by Standard No. 108.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

April 28, 1979

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

Dear Sirs,

According to your National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, Sec. 114 a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment to which FMVSS applies is required to be certified that it conforms to FMVSS. In the case of an item or motor vehicle equipment such certification may be in the form of a label or tag on such item or on the outside of a container in which such item is delivered.

And from FMVSS No.108, Sec. 4.7.2. the symbol DOT may be labeled which shall constitute a certification that it conforms to FMVSS 108.

We are now labelling the DOT labels on our lamp assemblies, lamp units and reflex reflector assemblies of motor vehicle equipment for replacement.

The motor vehicle lighting equipments for replacement, however, are now delivered not only in the form of ass'y or unit but also in the form of disassembled parts such as for example, lenses, screws and bulbs, etc. Is it necessary for these parts also to be certified that they conform to FMVSS?

Also, in the case of lamp lens incorporated with reflex reflector do we have to label the DOT label on this reflex reflector certifing it meets FMVSS?

We would appreciate very much having your comments on our above questions at your earliest convenience.

Thanking you in advance for your cooperation,

H. Miyazawa Director, Automotive Lighting Engineering Dept.

ID: 1983-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche Aktiengesellschaft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 28, 1983

DR. ING.h.c. F. Porsche AG z. H. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach West Germany

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This is in response to your 1etter of October 13, 1983, to Nelson Erickson of this agency, requesting our interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 118, Power-Operated Window Systems.

A recent amendment to section 3(d) of FMVSS 118 (48 Fed. Reg. 46793, October 14, 1983, copy enclosed) permits power window operation during the "interval between the time the locking device which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of either of its front doors." As you point out in your recent letter, the opening of the vehicle's front doors would typically be sensed through the interior roof lamp electrical circuit. This circuit would be activated when the door is opened 8 to 10 inches from the frame. You ask whether it is permissible under the standard to have power windows remain operable until the door is opened to this point where the roof lamp is activated.

FMVSS 118 is primarily intended to prevent the unsupervised operation of power windows by children remaining in a vehicle. See 48 Fed. Reg. 46793. Paragraph 3(d) was drafted to be consistent with this goal, since it is highly probable that the driver would still be in the vehicle during the specified time interval. Your proposed interpretation is also consistent with the standard's goal, since the driver would not likely be able to leave the vehicle with the door only ajar.

Therefore, we agree that power systems may remain operable under paragraph 3(d) of FMVSS 118 until the door is opened far enough to permit a small adult to leave the vehicle. The 8 to 10 inch point where the roof lamp is activated appears to be within this permissible range

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Nelson Erickson Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W.

Washington,D.C. 20590

USA

ESVG-My-re Weissach,October 13,1983

Subject: Request of Clarification of the term "opening" - FMVSS 118

Dear Mr. Erickson,

We kindly ask for clarification of the above mentioned term.

Your early favorable consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated as we presently can not continue to design any further on this matter until we receive an answer from you.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Ing.h.c.F. Porsche AG -Technical Administration-

Dr.Ing. h.c.F.porsche AG z.H. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Mayer Enclosure

Request of Clarification of the term "opening" in relation with FMVSS 118, Power-Operated Window System

With publication of Docket No. 82-07; Notice 2 (Federal Register Vol. 48, No. 88, Page 20237 of May 5, 1983) Standard 118 was amended to the extent that the use of the power window or partition systems are admissible, pursuant to S 3 (d), which states that: "during the interval between the time a running engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two door vehicle's door or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of either of "its front doors".

Porsche welcomes this amendment and would like to use this as a future opportunity to improve comfort and still maintain the present safety level.

In design, the interior roof lamp door switch is normally used to signal to the power source of the window regulators if the door is in an "opened" or in a "closed" position.

We now ran into the following problem which we believe to be a basic problem for all the automakers:

In practice it is not common to adjust the door switch or to locate the switch on the carbody in order to function if the door is opened just for a crack, forexample a fraction on an inch.

The building tolerances of the carbody in the area of the door-post are the result of a series of individual tolerances of various parts, including the door switch and is for this reason usually not to small.

Normally this switch actuates when the door is opened between 8" to 10" - the distance between the carbody and the rear end of the door. Even a slim adult will not be able to get out of the car through an opening like this. In our opinion it is admissible and for design necessary to pinpoint the extent of the opening in order to define the difference between the terms "opened" and "closed" in relation to a car door.

Your early favorable consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated since we have stopped designing until we receive an answer from you.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Ing.h.c. F. Porsche AG -Technical Administration-

ID: nht76-4.42

DATE: 02/25/76

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

TO: Byron A. Crampton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 16, 1976, concerning crew cab doors for use on fire trucks, and the interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components.

You asked two questions in your letter:

(1) Is it the intent of FMVSS 206 to actually address door hardware for doors that are adjacent to a walkway and not a seat?

Standard No. 206 is applicable to the type of vehicle that you described. Paragraph S4 of the standard states that "component on any side door leading directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations shall conform to this standard". The standard does not require the door to be directly adjacent to a seat. The door on your vehicle leads directly "into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations," so the standard is applicable. The presence of a walkway is irrevelant.

(2) If the standard does apply would not the installation of an untested conventional door structure in place of a folding door result in a safer vehicle?

The NHTSA hopes that manufacturers would install conventional hinged door structures instead of folding doors on fire trucks, if the hinged doors would result in producing safer vehicles. The cost of testing the components of hinged doors for purposes of Standard 206 should not be determinative of whether the manufacturer will install hinged doors or folding doors on the fire trucks. Rather, the safety of the firemen who must use the trucks should be the determinative factor.

You should be aware that the tests in Standard No. 206 are laboratory tests of the components, and do not involve the vehicle as a whole. These component systems are generally available from suppliers and are already warranted as being in compliance with Federal standards. Therefore, the cost of using conventional hinged doors might not be as prohibitive as you had supposed.

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

YOURS TRULY,

TRUCK BODY AND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC.

January 16, 1976

Richard B. Dyson, Asst. Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

The Fire Apparatus Manufacturers Division (FAMD) of the Truck Body and Equipment Association (TBEA) represents more than fifty manufacturers of fire apparatus, who in turn account for approximately 85% of the pieces of equipment sold within the United States.

Recently several FAMD members have questioned this office as to specific requirements of FMVSS 206 as applicable to fire apparatus equipped with crew cabs. The vehicles in question (see sketch) are generally produced on a commercial truck chassis by adding fire fighting equipment, a fire apparatus body, and finally - a crew cab which allows the vehicle to carry additional personnel.

From the sketch, it can be seen, that the crew cab doors open up to a walkway to the passenger compartment and not onto a designated seating position. The three designated seating positions furnished with the crew cab are set back into the compartment to allow personnel clothed (Illegible Words) and breathing apparatus to walk to their seat.

Section S4 of FMVSS 206 states that the standard does not apply to folding doors or doors that are designed to be easily attached and removed, and therefore when faced with the high costs of testing a few completed vehicles to FMVSS 206 or installing either folding doors or quick release hinges, the decision is simple - but inconsistent with our aim toward developing the best piece of fire apparatus possible.

With this dilema in mind, our questions are as follows:

1. Is it the intent of FMVSS 206 to actually address door hardware for doors that are adjacent to a walkway and not a seat?

2. If the standard does apply, would not the installation of an untested conventional door structure in place of a folding door result in a safer vehicle?

We would appreciate any additional comments that you may have concerning this situation.

Byron A. Crampton Manager of Engineering Services

* Notes

1. Crew cab doors are presently the folding type or equipped with quick disconnect hinges.

FIRE APPARATUS with CREW CAB

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht73-3.3

DATE: 11/27/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1973, concerning the installation of seat belts and seat belt anchorages for passenger seats in school buses. The belts would be used to assist handicapped passengers in remaining seated while the bus is in motion.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, which regulates the strength of seat belt anchorages, applies only to the driver's seat in a bus. The passengers' seats are not covered by the standard. As a result, an anchorage provided at a passenger seat in a bus does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 210.

If you plan to acquire conventional automotive seat belts for use in the buses, you will find that all belts must be certified to Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, by the belt manufacturer. Because of this the belt should not be a problem for you.

We would encourage you to construct the belt anchorages so that they have the capacity to protect the passengers in sudden stops or crashes, as well as to keep them in the seat during normal service. However, the anchorage standard does not have to be met for these seats and will not be an impediment to fulfilling your customers' orders for anchorage-equipped seats.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

October 23, 1973

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel NHTSA

Recent advertisements tell us that court decisions have held that it is a right of every child, regardless of physical or mental handicaps, to have a publicly financed education. In addition to this, there seems to be increased awareness of the special needs of handicapped children.

For these reasons, the usage of, and demand for special vehicles to transport handicapped children to and from school has increased in the past few years. With this increased usage, the problem of "passenger containment" during transportation has become more acute. Typical vehicles are used to transport both wheechair-confined passengers and other passengers who are ambulatory when aided, but yet have reduced muscular control. The problem we wish to address deals with the containment of these latter passengers in regular school-bus type seats during normal vehicle operation.

We have received several requests to install seatbelts in these special vehicles - not to mitigate the results of any accident - but rather to contain passengers during normal vehicle operation. Heretofore, we have declined such requests because our interpretation of FMVSS 209, S2 and S3 indicates that any such belts would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS 209 and FMVSS 210 even though seat belts are not now required for bus passenger seats.

We have not attempted to build seats with belts that meet these regulations because:

2

1. Anchoring (3) belts to the seat frame would require the frame to withstand a 15,000 lb. load as specified by FMVSS 210, S5.1. Current seats cannot withstand this loading and the market does not warrant the cost of a totally redesigned and re-tooled seat for handicapped passengers.

2. Anchoring belts to the floor would inhibit wheelchair movement within the vehicle, would present unacceptable tripping hazards to already handicapped children and is not acceptable to the purchasers and users of these special vehicles.

However, demand for occupant containment devices has increased to the point where some states are requiring them in their specifications. For example, the latest specification from Pennsylvania reads:

"Seat frames shall be equipped with rings or other devices to support pupils. This is not a seat belt or harness intended to mitigate the result to traffic accidents."

Therefore, we would like to propose that seatbelts which do not meet the full anchorage strength requirement of FMVSS 210 be allowed in special vehicles to transport handicapped children. Clearly these devices would add to passenger protection in all modes of operation.

Because of the urgency of this matter, we would appreciate an early response. Thank you.

W. G. Milby Project Engineer

cc: Dave Phelps Jim Moorman John Maddox