ID: 86-3.43

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey and Dean Hansell, Esqs. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell:

This responds to your letter asking two questions about Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. First you asked if the 17-character vehicle identification number (VIN) required on original equipment engines and transmissions had to appear in a single line. You stated that your Client would like to mark the engines and transmissions by splitting the VIN into two groups, with the second group of characters directly below the first. Such markings could comply with Part 541. Second, you asked if your client could use a trademark that has less than one centimeter high for marking replacement parts. Markings less than one centimeter high would not comply with the requirements of Part 541 applicable to replacement parts. These conclusions are explained in detail below.

If a vehicle manufacturer was not identifying its engines and/of transmissions with at least an 8-Character VIN derivative as of October 24, 1984, S541.5(b)(1) requires the engine and transmission to be marked with the full 17-character VIN. That section does not require that the 17 Characters appear on the same line. However, the preamble to the final rule establishing Part 541 explained the-policy reasons for requiring the full 17-Character VIN as follows:

One of the primary purposes of the Theft not is to make it easier for law enforcement agencies to establish that a vehicle or a major part is stolen. ... If this purpose is to be promoted,this standard must ensure that police officers learning of suspicious, potentially stolen vehicle parts can quickly verify whether those parts are stolen. 50 FR 43168, October 24, 1985.

In the agency's view, S511.5(b)(1) requires that the full 17-character VIN be marked in such a way that police can easily determine what VIN is marked on the part, and then check to see if that part is stolen. If a VIN is divided into segments, the proper sequence of those segments must be readily determinable. If the VIN here placed on the lines, beginning on the first line with the remainder of the VIN directly below the first line, as suggested in your letter, we do not believe it would be confusing or difficult for law enforcement officers to easily read the marking in the correct order. Accordingly, we conclude that marking the VIN on two separate lines, with the second directly below the first, would not violate any of the requirements of Part 541.

Your second question Has whether your Client could mark replacement parts by using a trademark that was one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter high. You explained that your client's trademark is wider than it is tall. After noting that the one centimeter height requirement was adopted so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit (50 FR 43177), you stated your opinion that a one centimeter wide trademark would serve these purposes as effectively as a one centimeter high trademark.

Section 541.6(c) reads as follows: "The trademark and the letter "R" required by paragraph (a) of this section must be at least one centimeter high." Any marking of the trademark which is less than one Centimeter high would not comply with this requirement, regardless of how wide the marking is.

However, the stated reasons for promulgating the minimum height requirement for trademarks were to ensure that they would be both clearly legible for investigators and more difficult for thieves to counterfeit. See 50 FR 43177, 43178, October 24, 1985. The agency did not specifically consider the situation where a trademark is wider than it is high. When a trademark is wider than it is high, it would be as clearly legible and as difficult to Counterfeit as a trademark that is higher than it is wide. However, the wider trademark might not comply with the standard while the higher trademark would. It does not appear that any purpose of the theft prevention standard is served by this anomalous result.

Accordingly, we have treated your letter as a petition for rulemaking under 49 CFR Part 552, and it is hereby granted. We will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on this topic shortly. Please note that, unless and until an amendment becomes effective as a final rule, S541.6(c) requires the trademark on replacement parts to be one centimeter high.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

January 7, 1986

Erika Z. Jones, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Regulatory Interpretation 49 CFR Parts 541 and 556 Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard

Dear Ms. Jones:

Porsche has two questions concerning the final rule implementing the Motor Vehicle Theft Enforcement Act of 1984 (49 CFR Parts 541 and 567).

First, may the seventeen digit Vehicle Identification Number marking to be placed on the engine and on the transmission be affixed on two lines rather than on a single line, assuming that the second line is directly below the first? Securing a flat surface on the transmission and on the engine with sufficient length to place a seventeen digit number on a single line is extremely difficult, and Could tend to impair the legibility of the number. Allowing the marking to be placed on two lines, one directly below the other, would afford is substantially greater flexibility and would improve its readability. There is no prohibition we could find in the rules to placing the VIN number on two lines, with the second line directly below the first. (See 49 CFR Sections 541.5 and 567.4(g)).

Second, may Porsche use a trademark which is at least one centimeter wide but less than one centimeter tall on the replacement parts? Replacement parts must be marked with the manufacturer's register trademark. 49 CFR 541.6. However, Porsche has an implementation problem in that its trademark is longer than it is tall.

A trademark is to have a minimum height of one centimeter. 49 CFR 541 6(c). The rationale for the minimum size for the trademark is to insure its visibility and to make it more difficult to counterfeit. As the Statement of Consideration for the final rule provides:

"NHTSA proposed the one cm minimum height for these markings so that the logo would be more clearly identifiable and more difficult to counterfeit."

50 Fed. Reg. 43,177(1985) Porsche completely agrees with NHTSA's two interests but believes they would be equally well met with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in length as with a trademark that was at least one centimeter in height. Such an alternative standard would permit Porsche to position the trademark in the optimal location.

We would appreciate your early response to these issues.

Your truly,

Dean Hansell

cc: Stephen P. Wood, Esq., Associate Chief Counsel for Rule Making

Stephen R. Kratzke Esq., Office of General Counsel

Brian McLaughlin, Office of Market Incentives

ID: nht81-3.38

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the application of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to a booster seat that uses a vehicle lap belt or lap/shoulder belt to restraint a child weighing 20 or more pounds. The following discussion answers your questions concerning the application of specific sections of the standard to a booster seat.

Section 4 of the standard defines a "child restraint system" as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." Since the booster seat you described would be used to seat a child weighing less than 50 pounds in a vehicle, it is a child restraint system and thus must meet the requirements of the standard. The vehicle lap belt (Type I belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type II belt) used with the system are specifically excluded by the definition of child restraint system and thus are not covered by the requirements of the standard.

You said that the booster seat would have no sides, back or fixed or movable surface directly in front of the child and asked how the standard would apply to such a design. The standard does not require a child restraint to have a back, sides or fixed or movable surface in front of the child. If such surfaces are provided, however, they must comply with the applicable requirements of sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4.

Each child restraint is required to meet the minimum head support surface requirements of S5.2.1. Section 5.2.1.2, however, exempts forward-facing child restraint from the minimum head support surface requirement if, "the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the standard seat assembly when the dummy is positioned in the system and the system is installed on the assembly in accordance with S6.1.2." Thus, unless your design is within the exception of S5.2.1.2, it would have to comply with the minimum head support requirements of S5.2.1.1. Any head support surface would also have to comply with the applicable requirements of S5.2.3. and S5.2.4.

You asked about the application of S5.4.3.2 to a booster seat. Section 5.4.3.2 provides that:

Each belt that is a part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system or the mass of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S7.3. (Emphasis added.)

As previously mentioned, the definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes Type I or Type II seat belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language emphasized above, the requirements of S5.4.3.2 do not apply to the lap and lap/shoulder belts used with a child restraint system. The agency, however, is concerned that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child that the lap belt be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis and thighs of a child, areas of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. Based on the drawing of your restraint, we are concerned that the vehicle lap belt may not be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. Instead, the lap belt may allow submarining and may apply impact loads to the abdomen. The agency is also concerned that the lap belt should be properly positioned and securely held so that no substantial inertial loads of the booster seat are applied to the child.

You stated that the booster seat would not have a harness system when it is used at a vehicle seating position equipped with a lap/shoulder belt. The standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Section 5.4.3.3 of the standard provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems only applies if a manufacturer provides belts as a part of the system.

Finally, you said that the booster seat would be sold with an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness. The harness would attach to the vehicle lap belt when the booster seat is used at a vehicle seating position that has no lap/shoulder belt. The harness would not have a crotch strap. As discussed previously, section 5.4.3.3 of the standard specifies the requirements that a child restraint system which provides a belt system must meet. S5.4.3.3(c) provides:

(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children over 20 pounds, crotch restraint in the form of:

i) a crotch strap connectable to the lap belt or other device used to restrain the lower torso, or

ii) a fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c).

The purpose of subsection (c) is to require a belt or surface design that will prevent the child from submarining under the lap belt (i.e., sliding down and forward under the belt). Thus, if a crotch belt is not provided, the surface of the restraint must be designed to prevent submarining and comply with S5.2.2.1(c). For example, the seating surface of the restraint could be designed to prevent submarining.

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

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration July 27, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are in the process of evaluating various new concepts for future child restraints we may produce. In this evaluation, we are uncertain what will or will not be allowed under the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard on designs that have a minimal "booster" seat and rely on the automobile adult lap belt or the auto adult lap/shoulder belt as a direct means of restraining the child.

If we had a design that was specified to be used only by children over 20 lbs., that had a firm seating platform with no sides or back, that by its design properly positioned the auto's three (3) point adult lap/shoulder belt for this age of child to provide adequate protection during dynamic testing, would such a design be allowed by the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard? It should be noted that the auto belts would be in direct contact with the child; there would be no other harness belts when used in an auto seat that provides a lap/shoulder belt; there would be no crotch strap at any time, but there would be an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness that would attach to the auto lap belt for use where no automobile lap/shoulder belt is provided. Finally, there would be no fixed or movable surface directly forward of the child. A drawing representing this concept is attached.

There are several sections of the standard that need interpreting on how they relate to such a design. They include Sections S5.4.3.2. through to Section S5.5 and others.

Would you please give us your official interpretation on whether this proposed design would comply with the 213-80 standard? We hope you will be able to give these questions your immediate attention.

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-1.45

DATE: February 19, 1991

FROM: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, State of Michigan, Department of Education

TO: Paul Rice -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Roger L. Lynas; Richard Claflin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Howard "Mac" Dashney (A37; VSA 1391(3); Part 571.3)

TEXT:

During the past 14 months, Michigan has experienced legislative and vehicle sales initiatives that have resulted in confusion among school districts and private fleet operators about vehicles used to transport students. On August 15, 1990, Public Act 187 (PA-187) of the Public Acts of 1990 went into effect. I have included a copy of the act. Section 10(1) states that, "A vehicle for which there are no applicable passenger protection federal motor vehicle safety standards shall not be used to transport passengers to and from school and school related events." Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors officials sent letters to their Michigan dealer networks. I have included a copy of Ford Motor Company's letter. The automobile manufacturers directed their dealers not to lease or sell certain types of vehicles to schools. They are multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events. The Michigan Department of Education, Department, has many questions about the purchase, sale, and use of this type of vehicle.

The Department requests that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration respond to the following questions:

1. Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS, apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

2. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

3. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

4. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

5. Are FMVSSs in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

6. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

7. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

8. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

The passage of PA-187 and a restrictive vehicle sales policy have caused confusion among Michigan's school bus fleet operators. Your timely responses to the above questions will assist the Department prepare an appropriate vehicle use policy.

Please direct your response to Howard "Mac" Dashney, Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

Attachment

FORD

K. C. Magee Ford Motor Company General Marketing Manager 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43318 Detroit, Michigan 48243

December 14, 1989

To: All Ford Dealers

Subject: Sale or Lease of Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons for Student Transportation

PURPOSE

This letter is intended to help remedy confusion that apparently exists among some dealers as to what vehicles may be lawfully sold or leased for student transportation. Both Federal and state motor vehicle safety laws and regulations apply to such vehicles.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and related regulations specify that school buses offered for sale shall meet certain unique requirements.

"School bus" is defined in the regulations as "a bus that is sold, or introduced into 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.

"Bus," in turn, is defined as "a motor vehicle ... designed for carrying more than 10 persons." 49 Code of Federal Regulations S571.3.

Units Having More Than Ten Seating Positions

Because Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons having more than ten designated seating positions do not comply with the requirements of Federal standards specifically applicable to school buses, they should not be sold or leased for transportation of preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to and from school or related events.

For sells incomplete vehicles (Econoline Vans and Cutaways with School Bus Prep Packages and B-Series Chassis Cowls) to be completed as school buses by specialized school bus manufacturers.

Units Having Ten or Fewer Seating Positions

The Federal school bus standards do not apply to Ford 5, 7 and 8 passenger Club Wagons as these vehicles are not "designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

There may be, however, state or local regulations requiring special equipment or identification that must be satisfied before the lower capacity Club Wagons may be used for student transportation. It is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations are applicable.

Units for Transportation of College or University Students

Questions sometimes arise concerning sale or lease of Club Wagons and Super Wagons to colleges and universities to transport students on field trips or athletic events.

An opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator indicates that vehicles used for such purposes are not considered to be "school buses" in determining applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, as the opinion points out, individual states are free to regulate vehicles used to transport college and university students if they chose to do so.

Dealer Responsibilities

Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that it considers the seller of a vehicle to be the person most likely to know its intended use, Ford Motor Company recommends that all dealers who sell or lease a Club Wagon or a Super Wagon as manufactured by Ford Motor Company with more than 10 designed seating positions obtain for his files

a signed statement from the purchaser or lessee that the vehicle is not being purchased or leased for carrying students to and from school or related events.

If a dealer sells or leases such a vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the purchaser or lessee intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, the dealer may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

As stated above, it is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations apply to vehicles sold or leased for student transportation.

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact your district office.

K. C. Magee

ID: 2784y

Mr. Takahiro Maeda
Assistant to the Vice President
Engineering Division
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A.
P.O. Box 6555
Cypress, CA 90630

Dear Mr. Maeda:

This is in reply to your letter of September 28, l990, requesting an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08.

Table IV of the standard establishes a minimum "edge to edge separation distance" between turn signal lamps and tail or stop lamps installed on motorcycles. You have asked whether the edge in question is the outer edge of the lamp assembly itself, or the edge of the reflector in the lamp.

The minimum edge to edge separation distance is measured from the edge of the illuminated surface of one lamp to another, that is to say, from the edge of the effective projected luminous area of one lens to the edge of the effective projected luminous area of the other. It is unclear from the drawing you enclosed of the "tail/brake lamp" whether the edge of its effective projected luminous area of the lens is at the edge of the reflector, or at the edge of the lamp (as appears to be the case with the "turn signal"). If the former, the distance is measured between the edge of the tail/stop lamp reflector to the edge of the turn signal lamp assembly as you have initially indicated.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:l2/7/90

ID: 24477a.drn

Rod Nash, V.P. Engineering
Collins Industries, Inc.
15 Compound Drive
Hutchinson, KS 67502-4349

Dear Mr. Nash:

This responds to your May 30, 2002, letter asking about an April 19, 2002, final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release (67 FR 19343). The rule restricted where wheelchair securement anchorages may be installed, to ensure that they do not block access to emergency exit doors. You ask whether the rules restrictions limit or supercede requirements in S5.4.2 of the standard, which requires unobstructed passage of a parallelpiped through the emergency exit door. The answer is no.

Your first question concerned the meaning of S5.4.3.1, which states:

S5.4.3.1 Except as provided in paragraph S5.4.3.2 [for tracks and track-type devices running on the school bus floor] of this section, no portion of a wheelchair securement anchorage shall be located in a school bus such that:

(a) In the case of side emergency exit doors, any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by the interior side wall and emergency exit door opening, transverse vertical planes 305 mm (12 inches) forward and rearward of the center of any side emergency exit door restricted area, and a longitudinal vertical plane through the longitudinal centerline of the school bus, as shown in Figure 6A and Figure 6B.

(b) In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 4,536 kg (10,000 lb), any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the left and right sides of the door opening, a transverse vertical plane 305 mm (12 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the door opening, and a horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the floor of the bus, as shown in Figure 6C and Figure 6D.

(c) In the case of rear emergency exit doors in school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lb) or less, any portion of the wheelchair securement anchorage is within the space bounded by longitudinal vertical planes tangent to the left and right sides of the door opening, a transverse vertical plane 150 mm (6 inches) forward of the bottom edge of the door opening, and a horizontal plane 1,145 mm (45 inches) above the floor of the bus, as shown in Figure 6C and Figure 6D.

You ask whether S5.4.3.1 means that "the exit space in front of the rear emergency exit door of a school bus is now determined by the width of that door." The answer is no. The requirements of S5.4.3.1 are separate from the requirements in S5.4.2 for minimum exit aisle space to the rear emergency exit door. The latter requirement was established in a 1976 final rule (41 FR 3871, January 27, 1976). Today, the requirement is specified at S5.4.2.1, for school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds. S5.4.2.1 requires that an opening large enough to permit unobstructed passage of a rectangular parallelepiped 1145 mm x 610 mm x 305 mm (45 inches x 24 inches x 12 inches) to the rear emergency exit door be provided, keeping the parallelepiped upright and the lower surface in contact with the floor of the bus at all times. S5.4.2.2 specifies the same requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, except that the parallelepiped is 1145 mm x 550 mm x 150 mm (45 inches x 22 inches x 6 inches). S5.4.2 remains in effect today, and still requires exits on large and small school buses to be, basically, 24 and 22 inches wide, respectively, and to provide adequate emergency aisle space.^[1]

The new requirements in S5.4.3.1 set forth dimensions in which wheelchair securement anchorages may not be installed. This prohibition is intended to minimize the chances that a wheelchair would be installed in a school bus in service at a position where the emergency exit would be blocked or obstructed by the wheelchair. This complements the minimum dimensional requirements for exits.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman

Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:217

d./8/2/02

^[1] Parallelepipeds were also proposed for S5.4.3 but were not included in the final rule. The final rule stated: "NHTSA has determined that defining the space by using planes better meets NHTSAs intention in restricting spaces where the wheel chair securement may not be placed [than specifying a parallelepiped], as the space defined by planes would explicitly include the floor near the school bus rear emergency exit door." (See 67 FR at 19346.)

ID: nht73-1.6

DATE: 09/11/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 8, 1973, to Mr. Schneider asking for confirmation of your interpretation of two sections of Standard No. 105a.

You ask first whether S5.3.1 requires that the activation of an indicator lamp upon application of 50 pounds of force be instantaneous, or whether a minimal time lag is permissible. You indicate that in a "panic stop" there is a time lag of approximately 100 milliseconds between application of 50 pounds of force and lamp activities in the VW system. Since, as you state, it is "humanly impossible" to discern such a minimal time lag, we consider that the VW system complies with S5.3.1, and that the lamp is activated upon application of 50 pounds of force.

You are also correct in your interpretation of S5.2.1 that the 5-minute requirement applies only to vehicles that do not exceed the limit of traction on a 30 percent grade.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

August 8, 1973

Lawrence R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This letter is a request for interpretation of certain language in S5.3.1 and S5.2.1 of FMVSS 105a, Hydraulic Brake Systems.

In regard to this matter a meeting was held on August 6, 1973 with personnel of the NHTSA and Volkswagen representatives. In attendance were Messrs. Taylor Vincent, E. Driver, C. Baker and V. Bloom of the NHTSA, and Messrs. G. Riechel, J. Kennebeck and K.H. Ziwica of Volkswagen of America.

1. S5.3.1 provides that "an indicator lamp shall be activated when the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" (run) position and whenever any of the following conditions occur: (a) a pressure failure in any part of the service brake system, other than a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems, before or upon application of either (1) . . . or (2) 50 pounds of control force upon a fully manual service brake".

In the above mentioned meeting with the NHTSA, VW representatives described the conditions under which the brake failure system used by Volkswagen actuates if a failure in one of the subsystems has occurred. By using a normal or slow force application rate as shown in example "d" of attachment I, the failure indicator lamp will be activated before 50 pounds of control force are reached. By using a very fast application rate as shown in example "b" of attachment I, the indicator lamp will be activated with a certain time lag from the point where 50 pounds are reached. This characteristic is further illustrated in attachment II containing test data of a very slow control force application, and in attachment III for a panic brake force application.

In the discussion with the NHTSA representatives there was agreement that in regard to a fast control force application the wording in S5.3.1(a) "upon application of 50 pounds" does not mean that the failure indicator light must be activated instantaneously if a 50 pound control force is reached, but rather a certain time lag would be permissible before the warning light illuminates. For the panic brake situation, a time lag of approximately 100 ms, after 50 pounds control force are reached, was considered reasonable.

Based on the above mentioned discussion, we would appreciate it if you would provide us with written confirmation indicating that with a fast control force application the wording "upon application of 50 pounds" in S5.3.1(a) does not prohibit a reasonable time lag before the failure indicator lamp is activated. We want to emphasize that this interpretation would not detract from the safety intent of the requirement for failure indicators, as it is humanly impossible to discern such a minimal time lag.

2. According to S5.2.1, a parking brake system of a passenger car "shall be capable of holding the vehicle stationary (to the limit of traction of the braked wheels) for five minutes".

It is our understanding from the aforementioned discussion with the NHTSA personnel that the five minute requirement only applies to a vehicle which is able to be kept stationary by its parking brake at 30% inclination. A vehicle which slides down the 30% inclination with wheels locked by the parking brake is not required to meet the five minute requirement.

We also would appreciate receiving your written confirmation to this interpretation of S5.2.1 of FMVSS 105a.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

J.W. Kennebeck --

Manager,

Safety and Development

(Graphics omitted)

Attachment B

Broke Pedal applied very fast failure induced in rear circuit

ID: nht94-6.47

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ulrich Metz -- Automotive Division, Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from Ulrich Metz to NHTSA (OCC 9194)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshield. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels THROUGH A CYCLE) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme AND RETURN" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the

requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met.

As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system.

Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-2.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ulrich Metz -- Automotive Division, Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from Ulrich Metz to NHTSA (OCC 9194)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshield. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, W indshield Wiping and Washing systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 10 4. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must als o be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe p attern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels THROUGH A CYCLE) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement du ring system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme AND RETURN" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the

requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met.

As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at l east 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of en gine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system.

Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpo se passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, howeve r, apply only to passenger cars.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9194

Mr. Ulrich Metz
Automotive Division
Robert Bosch GmbH
K4/ERW3
Postfach 1163
77813 Buel
Germany

Dear Mr. Metz:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshields. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A", "B", and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels through a cycle) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme and return" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met.

As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system.

Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:104 d:4/7/94

ID: nht93-8.35

DATE: November 30, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ray Paradis -- Manufacturing Manager, Dakota Mfg. Co., Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11/16/93 from John Womack to Ray Paradis

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX of November 18, 1993, requesting a clarification of our letter of November 16 as it applies to the rear of the trailers shown in items #5 and #7 which accompanied your letter of August 31, 1993.

As we advised you with respect to rear markings, Standard No. 108 requires a horizontal strip of retroreflective sheeting across the full width of the trailer. With respect to the trailer shown in #7, retroreflective tape can be applied across the full width of the "approach ramp" to meet the requirements since the ramp will be in the down position when the trailer is moving.

As we further advised you, paragraph S5.7.1.3(b) anticipates that the length of the color segments may have to be modified to facilitate using material near rear lamps. In the worst cases of trailers with rear surfaces no wider than the minimum required for lamps. breaks in the rear treatment are unavoidable to clear the lamps. But NHTSA expects the manufacturer to minimize the breaks by using red material adjacent to red lamps. With respect to #5, we recommend applying red/white conspicuity treatment on either side of the identification lamps, with red material used in the remaining outboard areas.

I hope that this answers your questions.