ID: nht92-2.4

DATE: 11/25/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: KEVIN MITCHELL -- GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9-21-92 FROM KEVIN MITCHELL TO PAUL J. RICE (OCC 7759)

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking about the hydraulic brake hose labeling requirements (S5.2) of FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses. You indicated that your current brake hoses have two stripes, on opposite sides of the hose. Each of the stripes is interrupted by a line of information. One line, which you call the "DOT print line," contains the information required by FMVSS 106. The other line, which you call the "SAE print line," contains certain information not required by FMVSS 106, including "batch and shift" information.

You asked whether it is permissible to place the batch and shift information (consisting of a mark such as "AA") on the DOT print line. You stated that moving the batch and shift mark to the DOT print line would improve the legibility of the SAE print line. This is because better print materials could be used in the SAE print line if that legend did not contain a mark that must be updated on a daily or more frequent basis, such as the batch and shift mark. As discussed below, the batch and shift information may not be placed on the same line as the required information.

NHTSA's longstanding position, stated in past rulemaking notice preambles (e.g., 39 FR 7425, February 26, 1974; 39 FR 24012, June 28, 1974), is that the DOT print line may only contain the required information. The striping requirement (S5.2.1) of FMVSS 106 states that one of the requisite stripes on a brake hose "may be interrupted by the information required by S5.2.2, and the other stripe may be interrupted by additional information at the manufacturer's option." We interpret this to mean that the stripe that is interrupted by the required information may not be interrupted by information voluntarily provided by the manufacturer. This conclusion is consistent with the preamble for the final rule establishing S5.2.1 (38 FR 31302, November 13, 1973), which refers to optional additional information as not being permitted in the legend that interrupts the first stripe. (That rule modified the labeling requirements to permit interruption of the second stripe with the optional information.) NHTSA did not permit optional information to be mixed with the required information because the mixture of optional and required labeling could obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or interfere with the appearance of complete labeling on some hose assemblies.

For your information, we have enclosed the Federal Register documents cited above. Please contact Ms. Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions.

ID: nht79-3.15

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. William Lynch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to the questions you raised with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office when you telephoned on June 19 with regard to your intention to establish a business for the manufacture of 53.6 gallon replacement gasoline tanks and for the installation of these tanks in used Cadillac limousines. You specifically asked what Federal law is applicable to your proposed activities and whether any Federal law establishes a maximum allowable capacity for gasoline tanks.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (the Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's) applicable either to entire vehicles or to equipment for installation in vehicles. FMVSS 301-75, Fuel System Integrity, (see enclosed copy) is a vehicle standard applicable to passenger cars and other vehicles which requires that fuel spillage occurring during and after any crash of the vehicle into a fixed or moving barrier not exceed established limits. As explained below, this standard indirectly affects both the installation and manufacture of replacement gasoline tanks.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits certain entities and persons from knowingly removing, disconnecting, or reducing the performance of equipment or elements of design installed on a vehicle in accordance with applicable FMVSS's. Specifically, the section provides:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . .

A person or entity found to have violated this section would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 for each violation. (Section 109 of the Act).

If a person or entity listed in section 108(a)(2)(A) removes the original gasoline tank from a used vehicle and installs a replacement tank, the section is violated unless the performance (as defined by FMVSS 301-75) of the replacement tank equals or exceeds the performance of the original tank. To determine the relative performance of the replacement tank, a number of issues would have to be examined, including the quality of the replacement tank, the connection of the tank with the filler pipe and fuel lines to the fuel pump, and the location of the tank with respect to surrounding vehicle structures. For example, if unlike the original tank, the replacement tank were sufficiently near surrounding vehicle structures so that those structures might be more readily pushed against or into the replacement tank and cause a rupture in a collision, the performance of the fuel system would have been impermissibly reduced.

Consequently, as a manufacturer of replacement gasoline tanks, you could be liable for a penalty under section 108(a)(2)(A) if you replace the gasoline tank in a used Cadillac limousine with one of your tanks, knowing that the performance of the replacement tank as installed would be inferior to that of the original tank.

Please note that should you decide to install your tanks in new vehicles prior to their first sale for purposes other than resale, you would also be required to certify that the vehicle as altered still complied with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Should these provisions become relevant to your business, I would be happy to provide further information.

Sections 151-155 of the Act, which are enclosed, would also apply to your activities as a manufacturer of gasoline tanks. These sections provide that if the agency or you find that your tanks contain a safety-related defect, you would be required to notify purchasers of the hazard and to remedy the defect. Under sections 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Act, any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect is liable for a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 per violation.

I would like to point out that, in addition to the Federal law discussed above, there may be state products liability law applicable to your proposed activities. As a manufacturer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for their design, materials, manufacture or performance. As an installer of gasoline tanks you could be liable for the manner and location in which the tanks are installed. Therefore, you may wish to consult a local lawyer before starting your new business.

Finally, with respect to your inquiry about a maximum allowable capacity for gasoline tanks, neither the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration nor the Department of Transportation as a whole has established such a limit.

I hope that you will find this response helpful.

ID: nht80-2.31

DATE: 05/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1980, requesting confirmation of the applicability of S4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) solely to light trucks and passenger cars.

Although Standard No. 115 applies to a variety of vehicle types, including multipurpose passenger vehicles, the location requirement in S4.4 regarding the placement of the vehicle identification number is of more limited applicability. The section expressly provides that the requirement applies to passenger cars and to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less only. Since Standard No. 115 does not contain any other VIN location requirement, manufacturers of multi-purpose passenger vehicle, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and heavy trucks are not limited by that standard in their choice of a VIN location. For definitions of these vehicle types, see 49 CFR 571.3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

April 3, 1980

Frederic Schwartz -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: Applicability of FMVSS115, S4.4

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

This letter will confirm a telephone conversation of February 13, 1980 between Mr. R. C. Hamilton and yourself regarding the applicability of FMVSS 115 paragraph S4.4 to Multi Purpose Vehicles. Mr. Hamilton was advised of the following:

S4.4 does not apply to MPV's or vans. Further, the NHTSA had not intended for MPV's or vans to meet the requirement that the VIN be readable through the windshield glass from a point outside the vehicle. As written S4.4 is applicable only to passenger cars and light trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. The above represents our understanding of the applicability of S4.4 of FMVSS 115.

Sincerely, INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY;

F. L. Krall, Manager -- Technical Legislation

ID: nht92-6.42

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Larry Nunn -- President, Automotive Lighting Technologies, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/10/92 from Larry Nunn to Office of Chief Council, NHTSA (OCC 7224)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for information on laws and regulations administered by this agency that would apply to an aftermarket product you have under development. Since your product constitutes "motor vehicle equipment," your product would be subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction as follows.

Your letter described your product, called "LeLite," as a lighting system designed to be attached to motorcycle helmets. The system is intended to increase rider visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp for motorcyclists. A drawing you enclosed depicts the "LeLite" as attached to the rear of the helmet, and you state that the "LeLite" includes a stop/running lamp with two amber turn signals.

You state that the lighting system is powered by a cord that connects to a "simple harness unit" mounted at a motorcycle location chosen by the motorcyclist. You further state that the harness is designed to attach directly into the motorcycle's brake/running lamp wires feeding from the battery terminal, enabling the system to light up in conjunction with the brake/running lamps on the vehicle.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you stated that the "LeLite" is to be sold separately from the motorcycle helmet and is designed to be readily attachable and detachable by the motorcyclist.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to regulate "motor vehicles" and items of "motor vehicle equipment." Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) defines "motor vehicle equipment," in part, as:

any system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement ... or intended for use exclusively to safeguard motor vehicles, drivers, passengers, and other highway users from risk of accident, injury, or death.

In your letter, you stated that the "LeLite" is intended to increase motorcyclist visibility by providing the equivalent of a center high mounted stop lamp. Increased motorcyclist visibility on the road would lessen the possibility of the motorcyclist's being hit by others who may not see the motorcyclist in time to avoid an accident. Thus, we would consider the "LeLite" as "motor vehicle equipment" since it is intended for use exclusively to safeguard motorcyclists from risk of accident, injury, or death.

You provided no information about the degree of difficulty involved in connecting the "LeLite's" harness into the motorcycle brake/running lamp wiring system. As previously stated, your intention apparently is that the individual user installs the "LeLite." However, please be aware that if installation into the wiring system should prove difficult for some users, and the "LeLite" should be installed into the motorcycle or motorcycle helmet by a commercial business, Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act could affect your product. That section of the Act requires manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses to ensure that they do not knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS). As you may be aware, FMVSS No. 108; Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment, specifies requirements for lamps on motor vehicles, and FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets, establishes minimum performance requirements for motorcycle helmets.

The above-named businesses could sell the "LeLite" but could not install it if the installation would adversely affect the vehicle or helmet's compliance with any of the FMVSS's. In the first instance, it would be the responsibility of these entities to determine whether there is any possibility of such an effect. The prohibitions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motorcycle helmet. Thus, a motorcyclist would not violate the Act by installing ,the "LeLite" even if doing so would adversely affect some safety feature in his or her motorcycle or motorcycle helmet.

However, please note that it is this agency's policy to discourage motorcycle helmet users from modifying their helmets. Section S5.6.1 of FMVSS No. 218; Motorcycle helmets requires that the following instruction be placed on helmets: "Make no modifications..." We are concerned that attaching the "LeLite" to a motorcycle helmet may cover the symbol "DOT" that constitutes the helmet manufacturer's certification that the helmet complies with the FMVSS's. Also, Standard No. 218 limits "rigid projections" outside the helmet's shell to those required for operation of essential accessories, and that do not protrude more than 5 millimeters. Based on your letter, the "LeLite" may constitute a "rigid projection." If so, it is not clear that the "LeLite" can meet the restrictions on "rigid projections" outside of the helmet's shell. For these reasons, the agency's policy would be to discourage motorcyclists from modifying their helmets by attaching any device that protrudes beyond the standard.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment such as the "LeLite" are also subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act specifies that if either your company or this agency determines that a safety-related defect exists in the "LeLite," your company as the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the safety-related defect and must either:

(1) repair the product so that the defect is removed; or (2) replace the product with identical or reasonably equivalent products which do not have a defect.

Whichever of these options is chosen, the manufacturer must bear the full expense and cannot charge the owner for the remedy if the equipment was purchased less than 8 years before the notification campaign.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of the Safety Act, and an information sheet describing how you can obtain copies of our motor vehicle safety standards and any other NHTSA regulation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 1984-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/27/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: H. Moriyoshi, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1984, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. You specifically inquired about the application of the requirements of section S3.5 of the standard to four possible inner door panel designs Mazda is considering.

You explained that manufacturer-installed armrests originally were simple in design and only extended a short distance sufficient to provide actual support for the arm or elbow of an occupant, but that currently manufacturers "employ inner door panel designs that embody a continous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience." You are concerned about whether the entire inner panel design would be considered an armrest.

You enclosed a drawing of four potential designs for an "inner door panel projection...that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest, ...other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls." You asked whether the entire designs would have to comply with section S3.5.1(b), which you understand applies to the whole armrest. You also asked how the designs could be changed to comply with section S3.5.1(a) or (c) and whether the agency's interpretation would differ if the designs were changed so that certain portions of the design were separate components.

First, I want to confirm that the requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements of S3.5.1(a), of the standard apply to the entire armrest, while S3.5.1(c) is limited to a portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area. Based on a review of the four designs, we have concluded that the shaded and unshaded portions of each design would be considered an armrest since each design is an integral unit which provides an area for an occupant to rest his or her arm. We cannot comment on how these designs could be changed to comply with sections S3.5.1(a) or (c) since your letter does not explain why you consider it impracticable to meet the requirements of those sections of the standard.

The agency's answer would differ if the designs shown in Figures 1, 2 and 4 were changed so that the shaded areas of those designs were a separate component located away from what you have labeled the literal armrest and had features, such as power window switches, installed in them which would preclude their use as a conventional armrest. As to Figure 3, if the shaded portion of the design which does not have a portion of the "literal armrest" on top of it were likewise moved and included functions to preclude its use to rest the arm, the agency would not consider it an armrest. It would appear that, because of the large size of the entire shaded area shown in Figure 3, you might not be able to separate it and include sufficient design features to preclude its use as an armrest. If that could be done, the agency, again, would not consider it an armrest.

As shown by your careful discussion of the purpose of the armrest requirements of the standard, you are aware that the agency is concerned about reducing injuries caused by any protrusion in the vehicle. If you decide to modify your designs so that certain portions would not be considered armrests covered by the standard, I urge you to utilize a design which will minimize occupant injuries.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 3 August 1984

Mr. Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt,

Mazda respectfully requests consideration of this letter seeking the interpretation of terminology used in S3.5, Armrests, of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Mazda understands that the requirements of S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest". This term has been generically used to define a protrusion mounted on the inner door panel and situated in such a manner as to allow an occupant to comfortably and conveniently rest their arm or elbow. The goal was to relieve the occupant of the fatigue that often accompanies automobile trips of extended length and provide a stable platform for the driver that decreases uneven and unnecessary movement. Originally, manufacturers installed "armrests" that were quite simple in design and extended along the length of the door only a significant distance to actually provide support to the occupant. Currently, however, many manufacturers employ inner door panel designs that embody a continuous and, in some cases, quite elaborate protrusion that extend the entire length of the door and serve many additional functions, often aimed at occupant convenience.

It is in this context that some confusion arises. The obvious intent of S3.5.1 was and is to protect the occupant from potentially injurious collisions with the inner door panel. Indeed, S3.5.1(c) refers specifically to the "pelvic impact area", presumably as the location of greatest possible risk. However, S3.5.1(a) and S3.5.1(b) apply to the entire "armrest" and, in the case of designs mentioned previously, could thereby be applicable to the entire length of the inner door panel, including those locations of the inner door panel that the lower body of an occupant would not contact under an impact situation. Therefore, a possible design that could assist in the overall goal of providing occupant convenience may be prohibited by strict implementation of the term "armrest".

Mazda has conceived four possible design configurations for an inner door panel projection (see Figures 1-4) that incorporate, in addition to a specific location that would be literally considered an armrest and therefore in compliance with S3.5.1 (b) (Mazda currently considers it impractical to utilize the requirements of S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) relative to the depicted configurations), other convenience functions. These additional functions, placed in remote locations from an occupant's trajectory during an impact, might include the door handle, power window switches, ashtrays, map pockets and remote side door mirror controls.

Therefore, upon consideration of the preceding remarks, please examine the inner door panel configurations depicted and discuss them individually. Also, please offer any comments, suggestions or recommendations that might serve to insure adequate occupant protection, compliance with FMVSS 201, S3.5.1 (b) and maximum design flexibility. Further, please comment on the efficacy of modifying the configurations depicted so that compliance with S3.5.1 (a) or S3.5.1 (c) might be possible. Finally, please discuss any relevance that the continuity of the projection might impart on your interpretation; for example, the shaded area shown in Figures 1-4 being a separate component or piece.

Your consideration is most appreciated.

Thank you.

H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager HM/mls

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Rodger I. Bloch, Sales & Marketing Director, Scott Air, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director Lavelle Road, P.O. Box 1745 Alamogordo, NM 88310

Dear Mr. Block:

This responds to your letter of August 15, 1984, concerning the application of Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to an air conditioning system you supply to school bus manufacturers. You explained that your system taps into the fuel system of the school bus. If your system is installed by a manufacturer as an item of original equipment on a school bus, the manufacturer of the bus, is required by Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle with the auxiliary air conditioner complies with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 301.

If you are installing the air conditioners on the vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, then you would be considered a vehicle alterer and under Part 567.7 be required to certify that the vehicle as altered complies with all applicable standards.

In addition, you, in effect, asked about how a manufacturer or alterer demonstrates that it has exercised due care in making its certification of compliance. The agency has recently written Blue Bird Body Co. concerning this issue and I am enclosing a copy of that letter.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

August 15, 1984

Dear Mr. Burndt:

Scott Air is a manufacturer of bus air comfort systems (air conditioning). It has been called to our attention by a manufacturer of school buses, that FMVSS 301-75 relating to fuel integrity was a concern to them. They have taken all steps to certify compliance to this standard. We are now supplying a self contained air conditioning system that is skirt mounted on the drivers side.

Our system is mounted to the chasis of the vehicle and incased in a steel housing, it is protected also by the steel brackets, by which it is mounted, as well as, the vehicle itself. Please see the enclosed photo's. We are tapping into the original certified fuel system of the vehicle and our system holds only about 6.5 ounces of fuel.

I have been talking to Mr. Taylor Vincent of your staff and also Mr. Tom Grubbs with the engineering department. They have both indicated we should be able to secure a DO CARE certification. Would you or your staff be so kind as to issue instructions to me, so I can proceed in this matter.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Rodger I. Bloch Sales & Marketing Director ds Enclosure: omitted.

ID: nht76-2.45

DATE: 03/17/76

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

COPYEE: HERLIHY; ARMSTRONG; HITCHCOCK

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to several questions raised by Blue Bird Body Company concerning the applicability of school bus safety standards to certain bus types under the newly-issued redefinition of school bus (40 FR 60033, December 31, 1975). The new definition (effective October 27, 1976) reads:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold, or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

In your February 24, 1976, letter you ask whether buses utilized to transport athletic teams and school bands to and from athletic events quality as school buses under the definition that becomes effective October 27, 1976, and, if so, whether they must therefore comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

From your description of the use of an "activity bus" to transport students to and from athletic events related to the students' school, it would be included as a school bus under the new definition if it were sold for this use. It appears clear that the manufacturer and dealer in these cases would both be aware that the purchasing school intended to use the bus to transport students to events related to their school, such as athletic events involving school teams. In close cases, the knowledge of parties to the sales transaction would be determinative of whether the bus was "sold . . . for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events . . . ." Any bus determined to be a school bus under the new definition would be required to meet all applicable standards in effect on the date of its manufacture.

Your December 16, 1975, letter asks whether transit buses that are based on a basic school bus design must meet the requirements of Standard No. 217, Emergency Exits, that apply to buses other than school buses. Since receipt of your letter, the redefinition of school bus has been issued and Standard No. 217 has been amended by the addition of requirements for school buses. In answer to your question, only a bus that is sold for purposes that include carrying students to and from school qualifies as a school bus. A bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation would be required to meet the requirements of Standard 217 for buses other than school buses.

Your separate question regarding the configuration of emergency exits has been answered in an earlier interpretation of the provision you question. A copy of that interpretation is enclosed.

Your March 4, 1976, letter asked whether the new definition of school bus includes buses that are sold for transportation of college-age students. You argued that an intent to include buses other than those for the transportation of preprimary-, primary-, and secondary-school students would go beyond the statutory definition added to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act by the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (15 U.S.C. @ 1391(14)), and apply the standards to a broader variety of vehicles than those for which they were developed. The NHTSA finds this argument to have merit. It therefore withdraws its discussion of the breadth of the regulatory definition of school bus that appeared in the December 31, 1975, preamble. The agency will not consider buses sold for the transportation of college-age students to be school buses.

You also asked if any motor vehicle safety standard requires that school buses be painted yellow. No motor vehicle safety standard requires yellow paint. At this time however, standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, requires installation of warning lights, and this would entail the use of yellow paint by the operator under Pupil Transportation Standard No. 17.

In an area unrelated to school bus definition, you asked in a February 20, 1976, letter whether the description of vehicle roof appearing in S5.2(b) of Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, applies to determination of roof size under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b). The description is intended to apply to roof measurement under both S5.2(a) and S5.2(b).

YOURS TRULY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 24, 1976

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: DOCKET NO. 75-24; NOTICE 02, REDEFINITION OF "SCHOOL BUS"

We frequently have orders for "activity buses" which are owned by schools for such trips as may be taken by the school band, football or other athletic teams. These buses often have recliner or headrest seats and more than average leg room to make the students comfortable for longer trips. Equipment such as warning lamps would probably never be used on this type bus since it usually departs from the local school or other designated sites and doesn't pick up and discharge students like a daily school bus. Schools also like to paint these buses with their own colors rather than NSBC.

Will it be legal for Blue Bird to fulfill market demand for buses as described above or must this type bus be NSBC in color, have school bus warning lamps, FMVSS 222 seats and barriers? Who is responsible for saying if this bus is a "school bus" or not?

Thanks for your help in this matter.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY March 4, 1976

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: DOCKET 75-24, NOTICE 2, REDEFINITION OF "SCHOOL BUS"

Additional questions regarding this subject have arisen since my letter of February 24, 1976 to you on the same subject. Therefore, please consider this letter to be an addendum to my letter of February 24, 1976.

We are assuming that buses owned and operated by parochial schools for the use of transporting students to or from school are "school buses" as well as buses owned and operated by public schools. Is this assumption correct? We understand that if these buses are "school buses" then they must meet all standards which apply to school buses. However, we are not sure if it must be painted NSBC yellow as described by Pupil Transportation Standard #17.

Specifically, if a customer such as a private school orders a bus and states on the purchase order that it will be used as a school bus, may we paint it a color other than NSBC yellow?

Public Law 93-492 defines a "school bus" as " . . . . a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than ten passengers in addition to the driver, and which the secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, pre-primary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools;".

Based on this definition, we are assuming there is no intent for college buses to be defined as "school buses". This conclusion seems to be further substantiated by the fact that college buses do not pick up and discharge students in such a way that they need to control traffic by the use of warning lamps. They are usually not NBSC yellow and their passengers would probably average more than the 120 lb. passenger weight which is required to be used as a basis for gross vehicle weight rating certification of school buses. Also, FMVSS 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, was obviously designed for 120 lb. passengers since it effectively limits the maximum knee clearance to approximately 25". This seat spacing is entirely inadequate for college students.

Based on these facts, we are assuming that college buses are not "school buses" and are, therefore, not subject to any standards which apply to school buses. Is this assumption correct?

We are in urgent need of the answers to each of these questions since they affect decisions we must make immediately regarding seat tooling and orders which are currently being solicited. Your early response will be greatly appreciated.

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY December 16, 1975

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel U. S. Dept. of Transportation NHTSA

SUBJECT: FMVSS 217, BUS WINDOW RETENTION AND RELEASE

REFERENCE: 1. N40-30 (MPP) Letter to Mr. James Tydings from R. B. Dyson dated September 25, 1973.

2. N40-33 (MPP) Letter to Mr. George R. Seamark from R. B. Dyson dated October 31, 1973.

The above references say that vehicles which share the same design as school buses but which are not used as school buses are considered to be school buses for the purposes of Standard 217 and they are therefore exempt from the emergency requirement of that standard.

We are currently evaluating the city bus market potential. The vehicles which we anticipate using for that application share many of the same design features and components as school buses. On the other hand, there are many areas of dissimilarity.

Our question is whether or not such a bus intended for city transit type usage must meet the requirements of paragraphs S5.2 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 217.

The enclosed photograph shows a sliding window type emergency exit which we would like to propose as a potential alternative to push-out type emergency windows. Are we correct in assuming that such a configuration qualifies as a valid emergency exit provided that it meets the emergency exit release requirements of paragraph S5.3 and the emergency exit identification requirements of S5.5?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

February 20, 1976

Mr. Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

SUBJECT: FMVSS 220 - SCHOOL BUS ROLLOVER PROTECTION

In S5.2b the vehicle roof for vehicles of GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less is described as "that structure, seen in the top projected view, that coincides with the passenger and driver compartment of the vehicle."

In S5.2a which addresses vehicles of GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs., the same detailed description of the vehicle roof is not given. This detail is necessary for locating the force application plate.

Are we correct in assuming that we may locate the force application plate for vehicles with a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. in accordance with the definition of the "vehicle roof" which is given in the S5.2b?

W. G. Milby Staff Engineer

ID: ConductorsAlliancedrn

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).

ID: ConductorsDaimlerChryslerdrn

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).

ID: ConductorsPilkingtondrn

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).

ID: ConductorsPPGdrn

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).