ID: ConductorsAlliancedrn
Open
Mr. Robert Strassburger
Vice President, Safety and Harmonization
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Mr. Strassburger:
This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-9) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002, and July 23, 2003, interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached.
We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205
March 2006
________________________________________
Background
A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less.
Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number".
Requests for Correction
General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following:
- It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass.
- Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification".
- There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed.
- In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue.
The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached.
Discussion
At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated:
The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably.
We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals.
- It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test.
- There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location.
- The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow".
- To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals.
Conclusions
- The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection.
- Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test.
- The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors.
ref:205
d.4/7/06
[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).
|
2006 |
ID: ConductorsDaimlerChryslerdrn
Open
Stephan P. Speth, Director
Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
800 Chrysler Drive CIMS 482-00-91
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2757
Dear Mr. Speth:
This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-3) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached.
We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205
March 2006
________________________________________
Background
A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less.
Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number".
Requests for Correction
General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following:
- It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass.
- Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification".
- There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed.
- In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue.
The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached.
Discussion
At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated:
The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably.
We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals.
- It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test.
- There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location.
- The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow".
- To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals.
Conclusions
- The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection.
- Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test.
- The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors.
ref:205
d.4/7/06
[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).
|
2006 |
ID: ConductorsGeneralMotorsdrn
Open
Lou Carlin, Director
Safety Regulations & Consumer Information
General Motors North America
Structure & Safety Integration
Mail Code: 480 111 S56
30200 Mound Rd.
Warren, MI 48090-9010
Dear Mr. Carlin:
This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-5) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached.
We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205
March 2006
________________________________________
Background
A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less.
Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number".
Requests for Correction
General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following:
- It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass.
- Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification".
- There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed.
- In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue.
The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached.
Discussion
At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated:
The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably.
We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals.
- It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test.
- There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location.
- The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow".
- To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals.
Conclusions
- The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection.
- Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test.
- The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors.
ref:205
d.4/7/06
[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).
|
2006 |
ID: ConductorsPilkingtondrn
Open
Joseph E. Poley, Senior Research Associate
Automotive Glass Technology
Pilkington North America, Inc.
2401 East Broadway
Toledo, OH 43619
Dear Mr. Poley:
This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-4) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached.
We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205". This paper clarifies the meaning of conductors and terminals and distinguishes between the terms.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205
March 2006
________________________________________
Background
A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less.
Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number".
Requests for Correction
General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following:
- It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass.
- Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification".
- There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed.
- In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue.
The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached.
Discussion
At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated:
The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably.
We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals.
- It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test.
- There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location.
- The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow".
- To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals.
Conclusions
- The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection.
- Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test.
- The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors.
ref:205
d.4/7/06
[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).
|
2006 |
ID: ConductorsPPGdrn
Open
John P. Banks, Director
Glass Quality & Value Focus
PPG Industries, Inc.
Glass Technology Center
P. O. Box 11472
Pittsburgh, PA11472
Dear Mr. Banks:
This responds to your letter (Docket 15712-6) asking us to reevaluate the November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003 interpretation letters that we issued to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, as amended on July 25, 2003 (68 FR 43964)(Docket No. 15712), further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959), requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached.
We have developed the enclosed paper, "The Definition of Conductor in Fracture, Test 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205."This paper clarifies the meaning of "conductors" and "terminals" and distinguishes between the terms.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosure
The Definition of "Conductor" in "Fracture, Test 7" of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996,
Incorporated by Reference into FMVSS No. 205
March 2006
________________________________________
Background
A July 25, 2003 final rule incorporated ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 into Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205.[1]Section 5.7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 has a fracture test specified for tempered glass and for multiple glazed units. The purpose of the fracture test is "to verify that the fragments produced by fracture of safety glazing materials are such as to minimize the risk of injury".To obtain fracture, a center punch or a hammer is used to break the glazing. To pass the test, the largest fractured particle must weigh 4.25 grams or less.
Section 5.7.2 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 specifies six production parts representing each construction type model number. The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
On November 26, 2002 and July 23, 2003, NHTSA issued interpretation letters to Mr. Larry Costa of Costa Industries, concerning whether FMVSS No. 205, as amended, requires glazing fracture testing to be conducted with conductors or any other components attached. The letters involved the meaning of the phrase "most difficult part or pattern designation" within the model number. The November 26, 2002 letter was of the opinion that the provision in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, under consideration in November 2002 for incorporation into FMVSS No. 205, would require manufacturers "to certify that glazing materials with conductors that may have localized annealing from a heating/cooling process would not produce any individual glass fragment weighing more than 4.25 g in a fracture test".The July 23, 2003 letter responded to an inquiry about "a subsequent soldering process or application of conductive adhesive [that] may result in changes in the structure of the glass, such that when the glass breaks, certain glass fragments (either attached to a conductor or free-standing) may exceed 4.25 g".The 2003 letter stated that, under the final rule adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 issued that day, the glass fragments resulting from fracturing the glazing "would need to be tested with conductors attached, if such a condition represented the most difficult part or pattern designation within a given model number".
Requests for Correction
General Motors, Pilkington North America (PNA), PPG Industries, DaimlerChrysler and the Alliance wrote the agency asking us to reconsider the interpretations of the fracture test of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 (Docket 15712). Their reasons included the following:
- It was not the intent of the authors of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 that fracture testing be performed with soldered terminals attached. Further, it has never been industry practice to perform the testing with soldered terminals, or any other hardware item attached to the glass.
- Requiring testing after soldering of connectors or terminals would change the certification and testing process. GM stated that the basic manufacturing of glazing materials consists of: (1) cutting the glass to shape; (2) grinding edge work on the glass; (3) printing the paint band; (4) silk-screening the silver-frit conductors; (5) bending; and, (6) tempering. "When these steps are completed, the glazing has been shaped, sized, tempered, and where applicable, conductors applied. As contemplated by the wording of paragraph 5.7.2 of ANSI Z26.1-1996, it is at this stage that the glazing manufacturer has a piece that is suitable for all testing that relates to its physical and chemical properties.Soldering of connectors or terminals is one of those later steps that may not be performed by the glazing manufacturer".GM stated that companies that, at present, do not test glazing would become responsible for such testing. "The requirements of Z26.1 should be read in the context of the existing industry practices of glazing manufacture, testing, and certification. The 1996 revision changed the fracture test method, not the whole scheme of responsibility for testing and certification".
- There is no safety need to perform the fracture test with soldered terminals attached. There is very little likelihood that soldering would cause annealing, or that soldered terminals would change the weight of fracture test fragments. GM provided test data indicating that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no significant effect on fragment weight. GM stated that, for annealing to occur with tempered glazing, temperatures of 548-553 degrees C must occur over 15 minutes. At 505 degrees C, annealing requires more than 4 hours to occur. In contrast, normal soldering temperatures are typically 179-245 degrees C for less than 10 seconds for thermal soldering, or less than one second for resistance soldering. If soldering continues for longer or is done at higher temperatures, the glazing is likely to shatter from thermal shock or sustain other noticeable damage before becoming annealed.
- In current practice, individual glazing particles passing the fracture test requirement of 4.25 g would remain attached to the terminal in a cluster. According to PNA and the Alliance, the clusters pose no safety hazard because they are retained in place by the electrical wire. PNA stated that terminals have been attached to glazing for many years with no safety issue.
The parties asked NHTSA to reevaluate and clarify or correct the interpretations such that glazing would not be tested with soldered components attached.
Discussion
At issue is the use of the term "conductors" as used in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 at 5.7, "Fracture, Test 7".The test specifies that specimens shall represent the model number considering "thickness, color, conductors" and shall be of the most difficult part or pattern designation within the model number.
We have determined that the meaning of conductors, as used in the fracture test, should be clarified. Our earlier correspondence on this issue used the term "conductors" to include material that is soldered on the glazing, which is more commonly known in the industry as "terminals".In its submission, General Motors stated:
The confusion surrounding this issue may stem in part from a lack of clarity about the distinction between conductors (the silver frit that is applied as part of the glazing manufacturing process) and terminals (which are soldered to the conductors after the glazing manufacturing process.)In its responses to Mr. Costa, the NHTSA appears to use "conductors" and "terminals" interchangeably.
We have determined, for the following reasons, that for the purposes of the ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 fracture test, "conductors" does not include soldered terminals.
- It was not NHTSAs intent in adopting ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 to dramatically change the manufacturing and certification responsibilities within the glazing industry. The industry does not conduct fracture testing of tempered glass with the terminals attached. We did not intend the final rule to create glazing certification responsibilities for suppliers that had never conducted glazing tests, which would be the case if soldered terminals were included in the fracture test.
- There has not been any shown safety need to conduct fracture testing of glazing with the terminals attached. GMs data support the finding that the presence of soldered terminals during the fracture test has no statistically significant effect on the fragment weight. NHTSA also examined two vehicles at the agencys Vehicle Research Test Center in which the rear window was fractured during a crash test. In both cases, the wire and terminal of the window defroster remained intact at the rear window location.
- The term "electrical conductors" is used in the definition of "electrical circuits" in SAE Recommended Practice J216, Motor Vehicle Glazing-Electrical Circuits, July 1995. As used in that definition, which relates to glazing applications, electrical conductors are "used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow".
- To gain a better understanding of the intent of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, we contacted Mr. Richard L. Morrison, who was the acting chairman of the SAE Glazing Materials Standards Committee at the time of SAEs drafting of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996. Mr. Morrison stated that the term "conductors" in ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996 was intended to refer to the ceramic frit that is typically silk-screened on to the glazing and not to the bus bar terminals.
Conclusions
- The term "conductors," as used in FMVSS No. 205s fracture test incorporating ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, means the metallic frit or wires (with electrical conductive properties) applied to glazing as part of the glazing manufacturing process. The frit is usually silver, but may be of any color. More specifically, "conductors" means the wires in or on the plastic interlayer of the laminated safety glazing material, elements integral with the surface of a safety glazing material, or coatings used to carry current for lighting, antennas to facilitate communications, special sensors, and heating to promote vision through the removal of moisture condensation, ice films, or snow. The term "conductors" does not apply to any metallic components, parts, or equipment (such as terminals) that unavoidably come into contact with glass glazing as a result of their electrical connection to the metallic frit or wires through soldering or other mechanical means and possible adhesive bonds to finished glazing for strain relief of the electrical connection.
- Many components other than terminals are attached to glazing, such as hinges, hinge plates and antennas. We conclude that these items are also not included in the fracture test.
- The glazing sample to be tested in the fracture test is chosen based on a consideration of thickness, color, and conductors. If the most difficult part or pattern contained conductors, the test would be conducted with the conductors, as that term is defined in this paper. Accordingly, we disagree with the Alliances statement in its letter requesting clarification of the fracture test (Docket 15712-9) that "nothing indicates that conductors or terminals must be present during testing." In certain cases, the "most difficult part or pattern" may contain conductors.
d.4/7/06
ref:205
[1] Further amended September 26, 2003 (68 FR 55544), January 5, 2004 (69 FR 279), August 18, 2004 (69 FR 51188), and July 12, 2005 (70 FR 39959).
|
2006 |
ID: Congressman Tom Udall
Open
The Honorable Tom Udall
Member, U.S. House of Representatives
811 Saint Michaels Drive, Suite 104
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505
Dear Congressman Udall:
Thank you for your letter of January 12 on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Lance Tunick, who raised concerns about two requests he submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The first is a request for interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and the second, a petition requesting that the Morgan Motor Company be temporarily exempted from the advanced air bag requirements.
I am pleased to inform you that decisions have been made on both of these requests. On January 18, NHTSA responded to Mr. Tunicks request for interpretation of FMVSS No. 208. On January 30, NHTSA issued a Federal Register notice responding to Morgans petition for exemption. It was published February 2 and appears at page 5099 in volume 72 of the Federal Register. We have enclosed copies of both documents for your convenience.
I apologize for the delay in our response to his inquiries. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact me or Anthony M. Cooke,
Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-9511.
Sincerely yours,
Michael W. Harrington
Director of External Affairs
Enclosures
cc: Washington Office
ref:208
d.3/16/07
|
2007 |
ID: Conklin_6526
Open
William Conklin, Esq.
410 Central Avenue
Strain Building, Suite 309
Great Falls, MT 59403-2049
Dear Mr. Conklin:
This responds to your letter in which you asked several questions about the requirements for safety belts under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.You specifically asked about the requirements for rear side-facing seats in a 1999 van. As explained below, the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 depend in part on the type of vehicle in which the seats were installed and on the vehicles gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).
In your letter you asked about the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 with respect to a 1999 van used to transport criminal-detainees.You stated that the back of the van is equipped with "an expanded metal cage" that contains two side-facing bench seats.You then asked if the bench seats were required to have safety belts.
I note that we do not have sufficient information about the van in question.Therefore, I will discuss generally the seat belt requirements for side-facing rear seats in vans.
Generally, manufacturers are required to manufacture vehicles that comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.49 U.S.C. 30112 provides that:
A person may not manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date an applicable motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter takes effect unless the vehicle or equipment complies with the standard and is covered by a certification issued under section 30115 of this title.
In general, our regulations apply to vehicles up to the point of their first retail sale.
The applicability of requirements under FMVSS No. 208 is specific to vehicle-type. The seat belt requirements for seats as you described, and the appropriate citations, were essentially the same in 1999 as those that currently apply.A vehicle originally manufactured as you described effectively would be required to have a Type 1 (lap-only) or Type 2 (lap and shoulder) belt installed at each rear side-facing designated seating position if:
- the vehicle is a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle that has either a gross vehicle weight rating which is greater than 8,500 pounds, but not greater than 10,000 pounds, or has an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 pounds and a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.2.3); or
- the vehicle is a bus (i.e., a vehicle designed to carry 10 or more persons) with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less (S4.4.3.2).
The vehicle would not be required to have seat belts at the rear side-facing designated seating positions if:
- the vehicle is classified as a bus and has a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (S4.4.3.1);
- the vehicle is a truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (S4.3.2; the vehicle could instead comply with specified crash requirements); or
- the vehicle is a truck or a multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR of less than 8,500 pounds and an unloaded vehicle weight greater than 5,500 pounds.
We note that trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less will be required to have a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt at rear side-facing designated seating positions beginning September 1, 2007 (see, 69 Federal Register 70904; December 8, 2004).
Finally, if the side-facing seats were added to a certified, completed vehicle by a dealer or distributor prior to first retail sale of the vehicle, we would consider that party an "alterer" (see, 49 CFR 567.7).Accordingly, the vehicle as altered would be required to comply with all applicable FMVSSs (see 49 U.S.C. 30112).
I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.11/3/05
|
2005 |
ID: Connreg21936
Open
Harry C. Gough, P.E.
Automotive Engineering
Professional Specialist
State of Connecticut
Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161
Dear Mr. Gough:
This responds to your letter asking whether a Connecticut State regulation (Sec. 14-103d-1, Identification of vehicles, May 11, 1984) regarding compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles is preempted by Federal law, in light of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 303 and 304. I apologize for the delay in our response.
You enclosed a copy of the regulation which specifies exterior markings for vehicles powered by pressurized flammable gases. You state that the purpose for the regulation is to quickly identify the fuel type for fire and rescue personnel when responding to crashes.
As discussed below, State safety standards applicable to CNG fuel system integrity are generally preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, and FMVSS No. 303. However, it is our opinion that the Connecticut State exterior marking requirement for CNG vehicles is not preempted under our statute because the aspect of performance it addresses is not fuel system integrity but instead information for emergency personnel. One aspect, however, of the exterior marking requirement for CNG vehicles - the horizontally oriented diamond shaped sign - may be preempted under Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. This issue is briefly touched upon towards the end of this letter.
Connecticut's regulation states, in relevant part:
Any vehicle within the state which carries any pressurized gas as its fuel in a tank attached to the vehicle in any concealed area, including but not limited to, trunks, compartments or under such vehicle pursuant to Public Act No. 83-317 shall have displayed on its exterior the words "Pressurized Flammable Gas" in block letters at least two inches high (50.8mm), which letters shall be contrasting colors and shall be placed as near as possible to the area where the tank is located. In lieu of the above described lettering a vehicle which is required to be so identified may have permanently affixed to its exterior a reflectorized weather resistant sign which shall be a horizontally oriented diamond the center height of which shall be two-thirds (2/3) of the centerline length and of sufficient size to accommodate block lettering of at least 50.8 mm (2 inches) and further described as follows:
(a) In the case of vehicles using compressed natural gas or liquified natural gas, in silver or white letters CNG centered on a blue background. . . .
Further, the regulation states:
(e)(1) each vehicle required to be identified pursuant to Public Act No. 83-317 shall have the required sign, label or placard affixed to either the body of the vehicle as near as is practicable to the filling connection or directly upon the fuel tank at the filling connection so as to be clearly legible when viewed at a distance of 7.6 meters (25 feet) perpendicular to the vehicle upon which it is displayed.
(2) Unless the sign, label or placard required pursuant to subdivision (1) of this section is located as here-in-after provided, each motor vehicle shall in addition to the identification required pursuant to subdivision (1) have an additional sign, label or placard affixed to the back of the vehicle, not including the bumper, within 76 cm (30 inches) of the license plate which shall be clearly legible when viewed at a distance of 7.6 meters (25 feet) directly to the rear of the motor vehicle on which it is displayed.
49 U.S.C. 30103(b) states in relevant part:
When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State...may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter.
Under 30103, Federal law will preempt a State law if (1) there is a Federal safety standard in effect, (2) the State law covers the same aspect of performance as that Federal standard, and (3) the State law is not identical to the Federal standard.
NHTSA has issued FMVSSs to ensure the fuel system integrity of vehicles powered by CNG. FMVSS No. 303, Fuel system integrity of compressed natural gas vehicles (49 CFR 571.303), regulates the fuel system integrity of CNG light vehicles and all school buses. FMVSS No. 304, Compressed natural gas fuel container integrity (49 CFR 571.304), regulates the integrity of new CNG containers used to fuel motor vehicles.
FMVSS No. 303 at S5.3 requires that each CNG vehicle shall be permanently labeled, near the vehicle refueling connection, with the following statements:
(1) "Service pressure _______ kPa (_______ psig)" (S5.3.1), and
(2) "See instructions on fuel container for inspection and service life" (S5.3.2).
Section S5.3 further requires that the required information shall be visible to a person standing next to the vehicle during refueling, in English, and in letters and numbers that are not less than 4.76mm (3/16 inch) high.
FMVSS No. 304 at S7.4, Labeling, states that each CNG fuel container shall be permanently labeled with the following statements or information:
(a) "If there is a question about the proper use, installation, or maintenance of this container, contact ______," inserting the CNG fuel container manufacturer's name, address and telephone number.
(b) "Manufactured in ______," inserting the month and year of the manufacture of the CNG fuel container.
(c) "Service pressure ______kPa, (psig ______)."
(d) The symbol DOT, constituting a certification by the CNG container manufacturer that the container complies with all requirements of this standard.
(e) The container designation (e.g., Type 1, 2, 3, 4).
(f) "CNG Only."
(g) "This container should be visually inspected after a motor vehicle accident or fire and at least every 36 months or 36,000 miles, whichever comes first, for damage or deterioration."
(h) "Do Not Use After ______," inserting the month and year that mark the end of the manufacturer's recommended service life for the container.
Section S7.4 further requires that any label affixed to the container in compliance with this section shall remain in place and be legible for the manufacturer's recommended service life of the container. The information shall be in English and in letters and numbers that are at least 6.35 mm (1/4 inch) high.
Our statute would preempt State requirements of general applicability which address CNG fuel system integrity, including ones governing labeling intending to insure the integrity of the vehicle fuel system. The State requirements you asked about, however, are intended to allow fire and rescue personnel to quickly identify the fuel type when responding to crashes involving CNG vehicles and thus would not be regarded by NHTSA as relating to the same aspect of performance as the labeling requirements of FMVSS Nos. 303 and 304. Therefore, the State regulation would not be preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b).
Even if a State requirement is not expressly preempted under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), it may be impliedly preempted if it creates an actual conflict with a NHTSA safety standard, either because it would be impossible to comply with both State and Federal requirements or because the judgment would "stand as an obstacle to" or "frustrate the purpose of" Federal law. We do not see any reason why the Connecticut exterior marking requirement would create a conflict with our safety standards, since the markings required by Connecticut law would not need to be in a location at which a Federally-required label must appear.
In addition to the Federal laws we administer, there could be preemption issues concerning Federal laws administered by the Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has jurisdiction over interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. We suggest that you contact the FMCSA at (202) 366-4009 for information concerning possible preemption under its program.
Another agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), is authorized under the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce and to preempt non-Federal requirements under certain circumstances. RSPA informs us that a state, local, or tribal placarding requirement is preempted if it is not substantively the same as Federal placarding requirements. RSPA states that while in this instance neither Federal hazmat law nor the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 C.F.R. parts 171-180) require placarding of CNG vehicles, one aspect of Connecticut's exterior marking requirement for CNG vehicles - the horizontally oriented diamond shaped sign - may be preempted under Federal hazardous materials transportation law because of its physical similarities to the hazardous materials placards required under HMR, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq. We suggest that you seek an interpretation on this issue from RSPA. You may contact RSPA at (202) 366-4400.
In closing, we want to make clear that we are not providing any views with respect to the merits of the State requirement regarding the identification of vehicles using pressurized gases as motor vehicle fuels. This letter only addresses the preemption issue you raised.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at this address of by telephone at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:303#304
d.4/19/01
|
2001 |
ID: Copy of 05-009466drn
Open
Ms. Phyllis Mason
2613 Sunny Meadow
McKinney, TX 75070
Dear Ms. Mason:
This responds to your letter about window screens. You state that you own a vehicle that has a rear window screen that raises and lowers with the touch of a button, and that you find the screen to be very useful. You ask whether a window screen that would operate with a switch built into the car to raise and lower a screen for the front window or windshield would be permitted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). The short answer is that our regulations do not prohibit a vehicle from having such a screen, but we have some safety concerns about such a device.
By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, our statute establishes a self-certification process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates reports of safety-related defects.
FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials, includes specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars). Under the standard, no manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices in a new vehicle, without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.
We have interpreted FMVSS No. 205 not to prohibit a retractable built-in screen for the rear window of vehicles (September 19, 1995 letter to General Motors Corporation). The agency determined in the 1995 letter that the screen is neither glazing in itself nor in combination with the glazing in the vehicle (because it is not attached to the glazing). Similarly, we interpret the standard as not prohibiting a retractable built-in front window screen.
However, we have some safety concerns about in-vehicle front windshield shades. Driving with a lowered shade would be unsafe, as the view through the windshield could be substantially impeded. We are also concerned that these devices could be purposefully or unintentionally deployed while the vehicle is in motion. From this perspective, non-mechanical front windshield shade products that protect the interior while the vehicle is parked do not convey such risk.
Note that States have the authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles. If you wish to know whether State law permits the installation of front windshield screens in a vehicle, you should contact State officials with your question.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Dorothy Nakama at this address or at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely,
Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:205#302
d.6/19/06
Our statute limits the types of modifications that manufacturers, dealers, distributors and repair businesses can make to used vehicles (49 U.S.C. 30122). These entities cannot install a built-in sun screen if doing so would make inoperative any device or design installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS.
|
2006 |
ID: Copy of 06-007875--6 May 09 rewrite--rsy
Open
Jeff Ronning, PE
Senior Consultant
Rocky Mountain Institute
1739 Snowmass Creek Road
Snowmass, CO 81654-9199
Dear Mr. Ronning:
This responds to your inquiry to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of November 27, 2006. I apologize for the delay in responding. In your letter, you asked for our interpretation of 49 CFR Part 538 as it would apply to a plug-in electric hybrid design for a postal delivery vehicle. You ask for confirmation that your basic vehicle design will qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle so that the United States Postal Service (USPS) can be assured [you] are on the right course. You explained that if the vehicle is fully charged, it would be able to operate completely on electricity for most carriers where the average carrier route is only 15 miles, and that the gasoline engine would be used only for rare long-range travel and peripherals such as heating and all-wheel drive function. On January 9, 2007, you further asked by email whether a flex-fuel engine (i.e., one able to use either petroleum-based gasoline or ethanol E85 fuel) instead of a plain gas engine for the same hybrid vehicle would qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle under Part 538. Based on the information that you provided, either design would qualify as a dual-fuel vehicle for purposes of the dual-fuel CAFE incentive.
49 CFR Part 538, Manufacturing Incentives for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, is likely not directly relevant to the vehicle you described. Part 538 has three basic purposes. First, it establishes minimum driving range criteria to aid in identifying passenger automobiles that qualify as dual-fueled automobiles. Second, it establishes gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels other than natural gas. And finally, it extends the dual-fuel incentive program through model year 2008.
The minimum driving range criteria contained in 538.5 and 538.6 apply only to passenger automobiles. In the context of the CAFE program, passenger automobiles are defined as any automobile (other than an automobile capable of off-highway
operation) manufactured primarily for use in the transportation of not more than 10 individuals. Although NHTSA leaves it to automobile manufacturers to classify their vehicles in the first instance for CAFE purposes, we would likely consider a postal delivery vehicle to be a non-passenger automobile (commonly referred to as a light truck), since it is manufactured primarily for carrying cargo, and not for transporting passengers. Thus, the minimum driving range criteria of Part 538 would likely not apply to your vehicle.
The other two aspects of Part 538, gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels other than natural gas, and the extension of the incentive program through MY 2008, also would not apply to your vehicle. Since you described your vehicle as a plug-in hybrid, gallon-equivalent measurements for gaseous fuels would be irrelevant. Further, Part 538s extension of the incentive program has been superseded by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, which extended the program by statute through model year 2018. Thus, Part 538 would likely not apply to your vehicle.
However, your vehicle may still qualify for the dual-fuel incentive under 49 U.S.C. 32905(b), whether or not 49 CFR Part 538 applies to it. A dual fueled automobile is defined (in relevant part) in 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8) as an automobile that:
(A) is capable of operating on alternative fuel and on gasoline or diesel fuel; [and]
(B) provides equal or superior energy efficiency, as calculated for the applicable model year during fuel economy testing for the United States Government, when operating on alternative fuel as when operating on gasoline or diesel fuel.
Alternative fuel, in turn, is defined at 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(1) as including:
(J) electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and
(K) any other fuel the Secretary of Transportation prescribes by regulation that is not substantially petroleum and that would yield substantial energy security and environmental benefits.
Based on this statutory language, NHTSA interprets electricity as an alternative fuel only if it is not substantially petroleum. The electricity on which the alternative fuel vehicle operates must come from some source other than petroleum-based gasoline pumped into the vehicle; for example, from the grid, as in a plug-in hybrid, or from solar energy as the statute mentions. Thus, we would likely consider a plug-in hybrid like your proposed design, whether it contained a gasoline engine or an engine that could also run on E85, to be a dual fueled automobile under 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(8).
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Rebecca Yoon of my staff at (202) 366-2992.
Sincerely yours,
Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:538
d.7/24/09
49 CFR 523.4, see also 49 U.S.C. 32901(a)(18).
Nevertheless, we note that it is possible that, in the course of examining your vehicle, NHTSA could conclude that in actuality it would be appropriately classified as a passenger automobile. In that situation, in order to qualify for the dual fuel incentive, your vehicle would be required to conform with Part 538 and 49 U.S.C. 32901(c), which specify that the vehicle must drive a nominal distance of 7.5 miles on its stored capacity of electricity when operated on the EPA urban test cycle and 10.2 miles when operated on the EPA highway test cycle.
Pub. L. 110-140, Sec. 109 (Dec. 19, 2007).
In contrast, in a regular hybrid electric vehicle, any electricity used to run the vehicle comes from stored regenerative braking force, which is derived from the operation of the gasoline engine.
|
2009 |
