ID: 1983-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Patricia Hill

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Patricia Hill 2150 Hacker Road Howell, Michigan 48843

Dear Ms. Hill:

This responds to your March 23, 1983, letter asking five specific questions relating to Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Your questions and their answers are listed below:

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

"Erratic burning," as that term is used in the standard, relates to incidents where the material may soften or bend at the flaming end in a way that would not allow for uniform burning. Erratic burning, therefore, includes, but is not limited to, nonuniform burning as indicated in S5.1.3 of the standard where the use of support wires is mentioned.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

In actual practice, a test specimen is observed while burning during a compliance test to FMVSS No. 302. If the specimen is found both to soften and bend at the flaming end during testing and also fails to meet the minimum burn rate requirement, a retest is performed using support wires.

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive ammendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications of Standard No. 302.

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

We are not certain of the question that you are asking. The material would not have a flaming end to bend prior to ignition of the bunsen burner. If by this question you mean to ask what we would do about non-flat test specimens, the agency always attempts to test flat specimens only.

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

The agency currently has no plans for any modifications to TP 302-02.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 23, 1983

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter requests an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials.

Section 5.1.3 of the subject standard states that a test specimen "that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic (emphasis added) burning" is supported by a series of thin, heat resistant wires during testing.

Paragraph 10.2.2 of the NHTSA Laboratory Procedures for Flammability Compliance Tests, TP 302-02 dated June l973 allows a series of "thin (sic) heat resistant wires . . . to support specimens which tend to soften and bend at the flaming end." Paragraph 10.4.1 allows the use of support wires "If bending or curling of the specimen during test is anticipated (emphasis added)." I note that there is no mention of an "erratic-burning" condition in TP 302-02.

In your May l2, l976 letter to Mr. C.C. Setter you stated that the NHTSA intended to issue an interpretive amendment limiting the use of support wires during testing. You also stated that the NHTSA's experience indicated that use of support wires yielded significantly different burn rates. It is axiomatic that use of support wires will yield a slower burn rate. I interpret the text of your letter to mean that support wires could be used in some instances to influence whether a test specimen meets or fails to meet the burn rate requirements of the subject standard. I interpret the intent of your letter in part to counter a 1971 preamble stating that use of support wires had no significant effect on burn rate.

There is reason to believe that most of the domestic automotive manufacturers routinely use support wires for all testing intended to demonstrate or prove compliance with the requirements of FMVSS No. 302. Rationale to support this practice is apparently based upon a liberal interpretation of "erratic burning" in the subject standard and "anticipated" in the NHTSA test procedure. For instance, it is possible to anticipate bending or curling of the flaming end of a specimen prior to the start of a test without regard for historical data.

I am not aware that the NHTSA has performed any flammability testing for enforcement purposes in recent years.

Following is a list of my specific requests for interpretation.

1. Provide a definitive interpretation of "erratic burning" as used in the subject standard that may be related to a test procedure.

2. Provide a definitive interpretation of the word "anticipate" as used in TP 302-02. That is, must the expectation of a softening and bending of the flaming end be based upon an actual test of an identical test specimen? A similar test specimen?

3. Does the agency still plan to issue an interpretive amendment limiting or clarifying the use of support wires as stated in your 1976 letter? When?

4. How do the procedural requirements of the subject standard apply to a test specimen that bends at the flaming end prior to ignition by a bunsen burner?

5. Does the NHTSA plan to revise TP 302-02 to reflect your 1976 interpretation and your response to this letter? When?

I trust that this letter will be viewed in a constructive light.

Sincerely,

Patricia Hill

ID: 1983-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/02/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Company -- Paul Scully, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Company 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, MO 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of July 22, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency.

With respect to paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Standard No.108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment you have stated your understanding that paragraph applies only to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978, and that turn signal lamps must now comply with SAE Standard J588e, September 1970.

Paragraph S.4.1.1.7 did allow vehicular compliance with SAE J588d as an option to J588e. J588d required that any turn signal lamp used on a vehicle whose overall width was 80 inches or more have a minimum of 12 square inches effective projected luminous lens area. On the other hand, SAE J588e requires a minimum of 8 square inches effective projected luminous lens area on all single compartment rear turn signal lamps, regardless of vehicle width. However, on vehicles 80 inches or more in overall width, two turn signal lamps or compartments per side may be mounted closer together than 22 inches provided each meets single compartment photometric requirements and each has a minimum effective projected luminous lens area of 12 square inches. Thus, your understanding is correct.

I would also point out that, pursuant to Section S4.7.1 of Standard No. 108, the continued manufacture of turn signal lamps meeting J588d is permissible as replacement equipment for vehicles manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978.

Mr. Cavey has provided the copy of BMCS regulations which is enclosed.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 22, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

I need a copy of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations and I no longer have in my files the address of that agency. Would you be kind enough to telephone them and request that a copy of that booklet be forwarded to me. I would certainly appreciate it.

On a completely separate subject, a question arose today concerning the meaning of Paragraph S4.1.1.7 in FMVSS 108. The specific question related to the square inches of area needed for a turn signal on vehicles over 80".

My interpretation of the regulation has been that turn signal lamps for vehicles over 80" must comply with J588e dated September, 1970. This standard requires 8 square inches of area for single compartment lamps. That standard also spells out that when lamps are mounted closer together than 22" on vehicles over 80", they must then individually meet all of the requirements and must be 12 square inches.

Paragraph S4.1.1.7 only applies to turn signal lamps manufactured between January 1, 1972 and September 1, 1978 and simply permitted compliance with the prior standard J588d. This specific paragraph, in my judgment, only relates to vehicles built between the dates spelled out above and does not impact the area requirements as otherwise spelled out in J588e. Specifically, it is our understanding that the rear turn signal area for single compartment lamps is eight square inches regardless of the width of the vehicle. The only exception to this requirement is spelled out in the SAE standard which states that the area must be 12 square inches if indeed the units are placed closer together than 22". Can you please advise me if my interpretation is correct?

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

PS/sld

ID: 1983-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/83

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: PEKKA SUURONEN -- PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER RACEMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NOA - 30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/27/83 FROM PEKKA SUURONEN TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Suuronen:

This is in reply to your letters of July 27, 1983, and October 6, 1983, asking whether a sealed headlamp with "replaceable European H4 bulb," or "Ford bulb (6 standard sizes)" are considered "legal," (like Cibie BOBI) "provided it meets with all the applicable SAE standards."

Cibie certifies that its "BOBI" headlamp complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not contested that certification.

We do not understand your reference to the Ford bulb in "6 standard sizes." The only size of that bulb that may be used in the new replaceable bulb headlamp systems is the one specified in the recent amendment to Standard No. 108. However, Volkswagen has petitioned for rulemaking to allow the H4 bulb.

Sincerely,

ID: 1983-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. A. Wuddel Westfalische Metall Industrie KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany

Dear Mr. Wuddel:

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1983, to August Burgett of this agency. With reference to the recent amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permitting semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamp systems, you have asked whether a headlamp assembly would be allowed which also incorporated a European H1 or H2 bulb, "for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it."

It is our understanding that the H1 bulbs are commonly used in European lamps as the principal lighting source, and that H2 bulbs are used in high intensity supplemental front lamps. Therefore, use of one of these bulbs in a replaceable bulb headlamp would create, in effect, a system of four headlamps. The agency recently denied a petition by Volkswagen for a four-lamp system at this time using the standardized replaceable light source (copy enclosed), because of unresolved issues. We therefore are currently unable to allow a system such as you propose with the H1 or H2 bulb in a common housing with the standardized replaceable light source, creating in effect a four-lamp headlamp system. Further, paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, prohibits the installation of additional lighting equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and there is the distinct possibility that this could occur through incorporation of the H1 and H2 bulbs.

Use of the H1 and H2 bulbs in separate and independent units for driving or fog lamps remains permissible, subject to regulation by the individual American States, as these items are not covered by Standard No. 108.

You may be interested to know that Volkswagen of America has recently petitioned us for rulemaking that would allow use of the H4 bulb instead of the standardized replaceable light source in replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A decision is pending whether to grant this petition.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

Mr. A. Burgett Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. USA - Washington, D.C. 20590

BV Wu/Mei 7509 09-09-1983

Dear Sir,

Since optional headlighting systems are allowed according to FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No. 81-11, Notice 3) on certain promises, we intend to develop a semi-sealed headlamp assembly with two adjacent reflectors, moulded as one part, and a lens covering both reflector sections. The lens and the dual reflector would be sealed. The outward reflector would be equipped with a standardized replaceable bulb (Ford bulb) for the required upper and lower beam, and the inward reflector would be equipped with a european replaceable bulb type "H1" or "H2" for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it. The optical axis of the system would be parallel. On surface of the lens area for upper and lower beam there would be three aiming pads by which a common aiming adjustment of both the upper/lower beam and the auxiliary driving or fog lamp beam could be carried out.

We would like to learn whether such a headlamp assembly would be allowed or it is required that the aiming adjustment must be possible for each reflector.

Please find attached sketch.

Yours sincerely

Westfalische Metall Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co. i. A. Wuddel Headlamp Assembly

*Insert diagram here

ID: 1983-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Libby-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard P. Keim Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services Libby-Owens-Ford Company 811 Madison Avenue P.O. Box 799 Toledo, Ohio 43695

Dear Mr. Keim:

This responds to your letter of September 26, 1983, regarding the certification and marking requirements for glazing under S6 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated that you are interested in "out-sourcing some of your replacement auto glass requirements" to other manufacturers and sought clarification on four points concerning glazing identification.

Section 6 of Standard No. 205 deals specifically with the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). You ask whether it is permissible under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to allow another manufacturer, using its own DOT code mark, to put an LOF trademark and logo on its glass.

Section 6 of ANS Z26 states that a manufacturer shall mark safety glazing materials with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." The purpose behind these markings was to aid in the tracing of glazing materials and the enforcement of applicable standards. Your letter states that the other manufacturer will place their DOT code mark on the safety glass. Since the other manufacturer is using its own DOT code mark, the tracing and enforcement policies will not be circumvented. Therefore, under these circumstances, the use of LOF's logo and trademark is not violative of Standard No. 205.

Further, you ask whether another glass manufacturer can use LOF's "M" number on his glass with LOF's permission. As long as the model number is an accurate description of the specific glazing material being produced, the other manufacturer may use it.

Lastly, you ask if the name of the country of manufacture must appear on the safety glass if not manufactured in the United States. The standard does not mandate that the country of manufacture be marked on the safety glazing materials.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 26, 1983

Mr. Steven Oesch Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration 400-7th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

This is in regard to our phone conversation of September 22, 1983. We are contemplating out-sourcing some of our replacement auto glass requirements with other manufacturers but we feel we need a clarification of the requirements of manufacturers identification on the actual glass parts.

LOF's "DOT" registration No. is 15. This number along with the LOF logo "AS" number "M" number, etc. appears in the monogram on each piece of glass we produced in accordance with DOT regulations.

Our scenario is this. We have been told by other glass manufacturers that they could produce glass for LOF using LOF's logo ( or name ) and glass description in combination with their "DOT" registration number. An example of this is depicted below:

Typical monogram as currently placed on glass produced by LOF:

"INSERT"

Proposed alteration of monogram to be used by another manufacturer producing glass for LOF with LOF's permission, would be to substitute their own DOT Registration No. in place of DOT 15.

Questions which we have raised include:

1. Can another glass manufacturer put an LOF trademark on his glass with permission from LOF?

2. Can another glass manufacturer put the LOF logo on his glass with permission from LOF?

3. Can another glass manufacturer use LOF's "M" number on his glass with permission from LOF?

4. Must the name of the country of manufacture appear on the glass if manufactured in a country other than the U.S.? For example - Made in U.S.A does not have to appear on our glass.

If the answer to any of these questions is no, please explain if there is any other substitution(s) that could be made which would make it permissible for another manufacturer to put the name LOF on glass he manufactures.

It has been indicated to us that some manufacturers are already producing glass using other companies names on their glass, but using their own DOT number.

Your consideration of this issue and prompt reply will be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Richard P. Keim Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services

RPK/slj

cc: A. E. Riggs J. M. Oathout R. E. Miller C. C. Washing J. W. Leonard G. C. McNaul

ID: 1983-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 22 1983

Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President, LJH Associates. Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91034

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1983, discussing a lighting product that you have developed and asking for "the approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

Your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lights to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, your devise operates by lights spreading from the center of the panel outward, in either or both directions.

We think that there is a great potential for confusion that this devise could create since it is so unlike anything seen before on a motor vehicle. In the stopping mode the driver following will see the steady light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, but also the dynamic lights of your devise spreading out from the center. The same dynamic light spread is seen but is meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously in the hazard warning mode. Thus, the potential for impairment of the required lighting equipment exists.

Generally, we do not favor any lights on the rear of a vehicle that are not required by the Federal lighting standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 19, 1983

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

I am president of a small consulting firm in Los Angeles that has developed a product that at worst I believe to be a decorative device and at best I believe to enhance the safety of an automobile. I hope to be raising venture capital in the near future to allow me to go into production of this device but before I do so I would Like to obtain approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

This device is a display integrated into the standard rear grill many production automobiles. The intention of this device is to enchance the normal rear lights on an automobile and to exist in addition to and to not impair the effectiveness but to enchance the normal operating characteristics of the existing rear lights (Motor VehicLe Safety Standard No. 108 - S4.1.3).

The major functions of this device work in conjunction with normal light functions without any additional operator intervention. Some of these functions are:

BRAKE < -> < ---> < -----> BRAKE

RIGHT TURN

LEFT TURN

EMERGENCY FLASHERS

CAUTION

REVERSE BACKING UP

Some sample photographs are enclosed to illustrate these displays. Please feel free to contact me if necessary to insure a positive disposition of this inquiry.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell President, LJM Associates, Inc.

INSERT GRAPH HERE

INSERT GRAPH HERE

ID: 1983-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Co. 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, Missouri 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency asking for a copy "of an NHTSA ruling issued sometime ago which supposedly permits the triple identification lights normally mounted on the top rear center line of semi-trailers to be mounted at the lower sill location."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation furnished the State of Wisconsin on June 18, 1981, concerning this practice by Fruehauf Corporation. In summary, Fruehauf demonstrated to us the impracticability of mounting the lights at the top of a body with high-opening doors and a narrow header (chiefly because of vulnerability of the wiring).

The agency's interpretation was limited to vehicles of that specific configuration, and was not intended to apply to semi-trailers in general.

If you have any further questions, we shall be glad to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

October 25, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey Crash Avoidance The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

At the recent SAE Lighting Committee meetings, there was some discussion of an NHTSA ruling issued sometime ago which supposedly permits the triple identification lights normally mounted on the top rear center line of semi-trailers to be mounted at the lower sill location. Frankly, I was rather surprised at this and had not been aware of any such ruling. Most of the industry now feels that the NHTSA has granted the trailer industry permission to mount these triple identification lamps at the lower sill level rather than at the top most part of the trailer which had previously been required.

I would very much appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the reference letter which had been discussed granting permission for these lamps to be mounted at the lower heighth.

Since the rear clearance lamps are now normally mounted in combination with the turn signal lamps at the lower rear of the trailer, these identification lights were really the only high mounted lamps required on the rear of the trailers and they served well to indicate that a heavy, over 80" vehicle was on the highway. If these lights are permitted to be mounted at the lower level, the following drivers will have absolutely no means of knowing that a large, heavy-duty vehicle is in front of them. If information I have received is correct, in a few years time we have gone from these five high mounted lights on the rear of semi-trailers to no lighting at the top of the trailer. Obviously, a vehicle directly behind the trailer could block all access to the lower lights and a following driver, except the one directly behind the trailer, would have no way of knowing the vehicle was even there. I am quite surprised that NHTSA would grant such an exception on a permanent basis and therefore I would very much appreciate a copy of that so-called ruling which I understand has been issued.

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

cc: Don Armacost, Jr. Joe Hodges

ID: 1983-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John R. Hughes -- Vice President, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Hughes:

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1983, furnishing the information I suggested in my letter of August 15 to Mr. Snyder.

As you know, I wrote Mr. Stalder of Carland on February 8, that the rail inspection vehicle you wish to purchase, is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, because it was not manufactured exclusively for use on rails, and, in our experience, would spend some portion of its life on the public roads. In reply, Mr. Snyder raised the possibility that any off-track utilization by Kansas City Southern would be on its private roads, and I asked for clarification of that point. You have now indicated that this Mercedes but with railroad track conversion will indeed spend 30% of its time on the public roads.

We therefore affirm our interpretation of February 8, that this vehicle is a "motor vehicle" which must meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, even if Kansas City Southern purchases only one of them, and intends to scrap it at the end of its operating life.

Sincerely,

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

October 13, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20024

In re: Swil Weg Vehicle Utilization and Disposition

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to clarify the use of the Zwel Weg/Mercedes vans being considered for purchase by Carland, Inc. for lease to The Kansas City Southern Railway Company. The vans will primarily be used in track inspection and transportation of maintenance of any personnel. The value of these vehicles is that they can be easily and economically utilized on the existing rail facilities. The vehicles would be used on public roads to transport personnel to and from public facilities (motels, restaurants, etc.) within their area of operations. It is estimated that the off track on (public) road utilization will be approximately 30%.

At present, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company is not utilizing any of these vehicles and there are no definite commitments for purchase by Carland, with the exception of the vehicle presently in the country--provided that this vehicle can be brought into conformity. When this is achieved, it is currently anticipated that an additional unit will be purchased for use by The Kansas City Southern Railway Company at its Shreveport, Louisiana facility. Future purchases will be contingent upon the success of these vehicles, subsequent prices and the needs of the railroad.

The vehicles will be used as long as is possible. When they are no longer economically operable (whether due to damage, or due to the vehicles becoming uneconomical to repair or maintain), they will be scrapped. The modifications which have been added to these vehicles to which the rail system is attached are permanently affixed by welding and are not transferable to another vehicle.

The conversion unit can, in any event, only be properly fitted by the Zwel Meg Company machinists. The Conversion unit, although accessible for servicing and maintenance, is not readily removable. The unit cannot be fitted to another vehicle without factory personnel and, in any event, the warranties would then become null and void.

The purchase price for the vehicle, as equipped, is approximately $40,000, which makes removal of the conversion unit and operating the vehicle as a road vehicle not only impractical, but also excessively expensive.

The Kansas City Southern Railway Company is particularly interested in this vehicle because there is no comparable machine made in the United States. The presently available vehicles all have what Kansas City Southern considers to be serious limitations and problems which have rendered them less than satisfactory in their use experience.

We appreciate your reconsideration of this matter.

Sincerely yours, Original signed by John H. Hughes

ID: 1983-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eddie Wayne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Eddie Wayne 4306 Emmet Drive Erie, Pennsylvania 16511

Dear Mr. Wayne:

Thank you for your recent note asking if motorcycle headlamps could not be required to have a blue or green lens across the top portion, so that cycles could be distinguished from a four-wheeled motor vehicle with only one headlamp.

This is an interesting suggestion. However, we would not wish to impose a requirement that would interfere with the effectiveness of the single headlamp with which most motorcycles are equipped. The other side of the coin is marking the four-wheeled vehicle so that it is distinguishable from a motorcycle when one of its headlamps is out. We currently require passenger cars, light trucks, and others, to have amber or white parking lamps and amber front side marker lamps that are illuminated when the headlamps are on. While these lights may not be as readily visible from greater distances as a headlamp, nevertheless their presence on a vehicle does help to distinguish that vehicle from a motorcycle at night, when a headlamp is missing.

Thank you for your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche Aktiengesellschaft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 28, 1983

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

Dear Mr. Mayer:

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

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

Washington,D.C. 20590

USA

ESVG-My-re Weissach,October 13,1983

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

Dear Mr. Erickson,

We kindly ask for clarification of the above mentioned term.

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

Sincerely yours,

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

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

Mayer Enclosure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

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