ID: 1985-02.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/27/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. Ojima

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 27, 1985 Mr. M. Ojima Manager Asahi Glass Company, Ltd. 1-2, Marunouchi 2-Chrome. Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo, Japan Dear Mr. Ojima: Thank you for your letter of May 8, 1985, to Administrator Steed concerning the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, that apply to glass-plastic glazing. The answers to your questions are discussed below. Your first question concerns the requirements of the boil and humidity tests that apply to glass plastic glazing. You explained that after the boil test and the humidity test, your plastic material develops a haze. You stated that the maximum haze resulting from the boil test is approximately 10 percent. However, after the sample had been left at room temperature for 24 hours, the plastic haze disappeared and the plastic "completely recovered to the original condition." As you correctly noted, Standard No. 205 requires glass-plastic glazing to pass Test No. 3, Humidity, and Test 4, Boil Test, of the American National Standard Institute's "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways" Z26.1-1977, January 26, 1977 as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980, which is incorporated by reference in our standard. As explained in the preamble to the November 16, 1983, final rule setting performance requirements for glass-plastic glazing, the purpose of the humidity and boil tests is to ensure that the plastic layer of glass-plastic glazing does not delaminate when exposed to high temperatures and humidity. Since the temporary haze does not result in a permanent change in the structure of the glazing, which would occur if the glazing delaminated, we do not consider the temporary haze to be a failure of the boil or humidity tests. The glazing must, of course, comply with Test No. 17, Abrasion Resistance, as modified by Standard No. 205, which is directly meant to limit haze. Your second question concerned whether you should mark glass-plastic as "AS1" or AS14". You noted that ANSI Z26.1-1983 specifies that glass-plastic glazing should be marked "AS1", while our standard specifies the use of "AS14". Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the 1977 version of Z26.1a, July 3, 1980, and does not incorporate Z26.1-1983. Therefore, in accordance with S6.1 of Standard No. 205, you must mark glass-plastic glazing manufactured for sale in the United States with "AS14". If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-02.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Gordon Bonvallet

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gordon Bonvallet Manager, Photometric Division ETL Testing Laboratories, Inc P.O. Box 2040 Cortland, NY 13045-2040

Dear Mr. Bonvallet:

This is in reply to your letter of February 13, 1985, to this Office asking whether the agency intended to eliminate the maximum allowable value for parking lamp candlepower in the amendments of November 26, 1984 which established Figure 1b.

Thank you for calling this matter to our attention. The amendment appears to have the effect you ascribe to it, though it was not the agency's intention that it do so. The maximum values of SAE J222 December 1970 are those that should apply, and we shall reinstate them in the near future.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 13, 1985

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

Subject: Interpretation of Rule Making 49CFR Part 571 (Docket No. 83-12: Notice 2)

Figure 1b in the reference Docket shows a minimum allowable candlepower value of 4.0 for a one section "Parking" lamp. No maximum is indicated.

Is the intent to eliminate the allowable maximum candlepower for parking lamps or should the maximum values as listed in SAE J222 Dec. 70, referenced in FMVSS 108, be used? (SAE J222 JAN77 eliminated the maximum values.)

Very truly yours,

Gordon Bonvallet, Manager Photometric Division

GB/mm

ID: 1985-02.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/01/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. L.R. Cederbaum

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. L.R. Cederbaum Project Engineer Sagaz Industries, Inc. 16241 N.W. 48th Avenue Miami, FL 33014

Dear Mr. Cederbaum:

This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of interior materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, you asked if the flammability requirements set forth in section S4.3 for original equipment seat covers apply to "aftermarket" seat covers. The flammability requirements in Standard No. 302 must be met by aftermarket seat covers only if such seat covers are installed by manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or repair shops. Those aftermarket seat covers which are installed by the vehicle owner are not subject to the requirements of Standard No. 302.

Generally speaking, Standard No. 302 applies to motor vehicles prior to their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale, and not to aftermarket accessories for use with or in the vehicle, i.e., not to accessories added to a vehicle after such purchase. The general rule is that aftermarket seat covers may be added to vehicles, even if the addition of those seat covers causes the vehicle to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 302, without violating the requirements of the Act.

This general rule is, however, limited by the application of the provisions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (hereinafter "the Safety Act"; 15 U.S.C. 1397 (a)(2)(A)). That section specifies: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall 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 ..." The flammability resistance of the original seat covers is considered an element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with Standard No. 302. Thus, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business which installed a seat cover which did not comply with the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302 would be rendering inoperative that element of design, and thereby violating section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act. Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies a civil penalty of up to ,000 for each violation of section 108, and each installation of a noncomplying seat cover would be considered a separate violation.

You should note that the prohibitions of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) do not apply to the vehicle owner rendering inoperative some element of design in his or her vehicle, and therefore aftermarket seat covers which are sold to and installed by owners need not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302.

There are two factors which ought to be considered by the manufacturers of seat covers which do not satisfy the flammability resistance requirements of Standard No. 302. First is the possibility of liability under State and seat covers which complied with the flammability requirements would not have caught fire, or if those seat covers burn much more rapidly than seat covers which comply with Standard No. 302. Second is the possibility of a finding of a safety-related defect in those seat covers. Should such seat covers readily catch fire or burn very rapidly in situations where seat covers which satisfied the flammability requirements would not, the seat covers might well be found to contain a safety-related defect. Sections 151-154 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414) require that, when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

February 19, 1985

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Office of Chief Counsel Room 5219 407 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTENTION Mr. Steve Kratzke Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 Par. S 4. Requirements

Dear Sir: This letter confirms our telephone conversation of February 19, 1985 in which the applicability of subparagraph S 4.1, which lists various components of the vehicle occupant compartment that shall meet the flammability requirement as described in S4.3(a) of MVSS No. 302.

It is my understanding from your statement this Standard No. 302 and its subsequent requirements do not apply to "after market automobile seatcovers."

I would appreciate letter confirmation of this fact.

Thank you for your service.

Very Truly, SAGAZ INDUSTRIES, INC.

L.R. Cederbaum, Project Engineer

LRC/tr

ID: 1985-02.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. M. B. Roosen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. B. Roosen Director of Transportation Richland County School District One 927 Whaley Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mr. Roosen:

This responds to your February 25, 1985 letter to me requesting information about our school bus regulations. You have been asked by your school district to purchase new 15-passenger vans for use on school related activity trips. You believe that our regulations require that 15-passenger vans sold as school buses must be certified as meeting the school bus safety standards. Your understanding is correct.

In your letter, you requested that we send you a copy of the regulation that requires manufacturers and dealers who sell new buses to schools to sell school buses that comply with our school bus safety standards. As explained below, this mandate is found in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and the 1974 amendments to that Act.

To begin, I would like to explain that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different Acts of Congress, that affect school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued by our agency under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-563) apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Act, Congress expressly directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. You will find a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act enclosed. The 1974 amendment is incorporated in S103(i)(1)(A) and S103(i)(1)(B).

The Vehicle Safety Act contains the following definition of "school bus":

"Schoolbus" means a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers in addition to the driver, and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting primary, preprimary, or secondary school students to or from such schools or events related to such schools. (Emphasis added.)

Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits the manufacture and sale of, any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that does not conform to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Since the 15-passenger vans you plan to purchase are included in the above definition, they are school buses subject to the school bus safety standards. Under the Vehicle Safety Act, any person selling you a new school bus must sell a vehicle that complies with the school bus safety standards. I have enclosed a December 31, 1975, Federal Register notice (40 FR 60033) which discusses the responsibility of manufacturers and dealers to sell complying school buses.

This agency also administers a set of guidelines for State highway safety programs under the authority of the Highway Safety Act (Public Law 89-564). These guidelines, called Highway Safety Program Standards, cover a wide range of subjects. Individual States have chosen to adopt some or all of the guidelines as their own policies governing their highway safety programs. Highway Safety Program Standard (HSPS) No. 17, Pupil Transportation Safety, recommends that a bus used to transport 16 or less students be identified with the words "School Bus" and comply with the standard's requirements for color, mirrors and signal lamps, or be devoid of all of these characteristics. As it happens, however, a bus sold for use as a school bus is required by the Vehicle Safety Act to have warning lights and mirrors ( as well as many other safety features) . Because it must have this equipment, a 15-passenger bus in a State whose law fully incorporates HSPS No. 17 would have to be painted and signed as a school bus. For a State that has adopted this standard as its own policy, these specifications apply to activity buses as well as to the buses used for daily transportation.

I want to stress that HSPS No. 17 will affect you only if South Carolina has adopted it and if South Carolina accepts our view that the specifications apply to activity buses. Your State officials will be able to give you more information about other State requirements for school buses.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 25, 1985

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have been requested by members of this school district to purchase commercial type 15 passenger vans. These vehicles will be used for the purpose of transporting school students on field trips and other social related functions.

I am of the opinion that this type equipment is not authorized for these purposes, since they do not comply with the school bus safety standards. I have no regulations or documentation to confirm this, which is my problem.

I would appreciate very much if you could send me the regulations or advise me where I might obtain this information concerning this subject.

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

M.B. Roosen Director of Transportation 803/799-1477

MBR/jl

ID: 1985-02.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/85

FROM: JEFFREY R. MILLER -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ARMOND CARDARELLI -- DIRECTOR, SAFETY EQUIPMENT SERVICES AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE ADMINISTRATORS

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 04/13/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO MABEL Y. BULLOCK, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 205, VSA 103(D), VSA SECTION 108 (A)(2)(A); LETTER FROM MABEL Y. BULLOCK AND LACY H. THORNBURG TO SUSAN SCHRUTH -- NHTSA RE WINDOW TINTING, FEDERAL PRE-EMPTION OF STATE REGULATIONS, OCC 2142; NORTH CAROLINA STATUTE REGULATING WINDOW TINTING; LETTER DATED 12/18/87 FROM LACY H. THORNBURG AND MABEL Y. BULLOCK, SUBJECT MOTOR VEHICLES REGULATIONS OF DARK SHADED WINDOWS; PREEMPTION; LETTER DATED 05/06/88 FROM DAIRL BRAGG TO WILLIAM S. HIATT; LETTER DATED 10/28/82 FROM FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE T. HIROHATA, N0A-30; REGULATIONS DATED 07/01/85 EST, FEDERAL AUTO SAFETY LAWS AND MOTOR VEHICLE WINDOW TINTING

TEXT: Dear Mr. Cardarelli:

Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1985, concerning the application of Standard No. 205,Glazing Materials, to sun-screening materials used on vehicle glazing. I hope that the following discussion will answer your questions.

You first asked if Standard No. 205 regulates the use of sun-screening materials. Standard No. 205 affects the use of sun-screening materials in the following ways. Standard No. 205 sets performance requirements that all glazing used in new motor vehicles and all glazing sold as aftermarket equipment for use in motor vehicles must meet. One of the requirements of the standard is that, as explained in more detail in response to your second question, all windows requisite for driving visibility must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. Another is that glazing for use in those areas must meet specified requirements for resistance to abrasion.

Manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that the glazing in windows requisite for driving visibility, whether clear or tinted, conforms with the light transmittance of other requirements of the standard. Likewise, if a dealer or other person places sun-screening material on glazing in a new vehicle prior to sale of the vehicle, that person must certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with the requirements of Standard No. 205. Thus, for example, the light transmittance through the combination of the sun-screening material and the glazing must be at least 70 percent in the case of glazing used in windows requisite for driving visibility. Similarly, the combination must also meet the other applicable requirements of the standard, such as the abrasion resistance requirements.

Purchasers of new vehicles may alter the vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. There are no requirements under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act which would limit such alterations. However, certain commercial establishments must not install alterations. However, certain commercial establishments must not install tinted film or other sun-screening material on windows if the combination of the sun-screening material and glazing cannot meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business

P2

shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of these persons may knowingly install a film or other sun-screening material on a used vehicle for its owner if that act would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violators of this prohibition are subject to Federal civil penalties up to $ 1,000 for each violation.

State laws which are inconsistent with these Federal requirements are preempted. Any State law or regulation which would permit any person to install sun-screening material on a new vehicle in violation of Standard No. 205 is preempted under section 103(d) of the Vehicle Safety Act. For example, a State law which specifies a transmittance level less than 70 percent for windows requisite for driving visibility would be preempted. The adoption or retention of such a law would have no effect on the illegality of that installation under Federal law. Further, any State law or regulation that would permit manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses to install sun-screening material on a vehicle after its first sale in violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act is also preempted.

Your second question asked which windows in passenger cars, trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles must meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205. In particular, you asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to opera windows and sun roofs. The specification for light transmittance applies to all windows, including opera windows, in a passenger car. It does not, however, apply to car sun roofs. As to trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles, it only applies to the windshield and the windows to the immediate right and left of the driver. Thus, none of these windows may be darkly tinted. However, the windows to the rear of the driver in trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles are not required to meet the 70 percent light transmittance requirement and thus may be darkly tinted.

Your third question asked if the luminous transmittance requirements apply to the windows behind the driver in passenger cars or station wagons if those vehicles are equipped with an exterior mirror on the right side of the vehicle. The answer is that those windows must still meet the luminous transmittance requirements of Standard No. 205.

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

Sincerely,

ID: 1985-03.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. H. Moriyoshi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

June 28, 1985 Mr. H. Moriyoshi Executive Vice President and General Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 24402 Sinacola Court Farmington Hills, Michigan 48018 Dear Mr. Moriyoshi: This is in reply to your letter of June 3, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 regarding requirements for the center high-mounted stop lamp/ You reference an agency letter of July 30, 1980, to Volkswagen of America in which the Chief Counsel concluded that placement of the stop lamps and taillamps on the deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance requiring notification and remedy. You have asked, in essence, how this related to Standard No. 108's present allowance of a center high-mounted stop lamp mounted on a vehicle's decklid, hatch, or tailgate. The assumption underlying the agency's 1980 letter was that a defect could exist if all a vehicle's stop lamps and taillamps were mounted on the decklid, where their signals could be unobserved or obscured if the lid were in any position other than closed. The center high-mount stop lamp, on the other hand, while an item of required equipment, is nevertheless a supplementary stop lamp. Even if the deck, hatch, or tailgate upon which it is mounted should be open, following drivers may still observe the signals of the primary stop lamps remaining on the body. You have asked that we also discuss the implications of a stop lamp and taillamp constructed so that a portion is fixed to the body of the vehicle adjacent to the decklid opening and the remaining portion is mounted on the outboard area of the decklid. Compliance of a vehicle is determined with respect to its normal driving position, that is to say, with the tailgate, hatch, or decklid closed. However, in order to obviate any possibility of the existence of a safety-related defect, we recommend that the portion of the lamp that is mounted on the body itself comply with the minimum requirements of Standard No. 108 for a single compartment stop lamp or taillamp. I hope that this answers your questions. Sincerely, Original Signed by Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

ID: 1985-03.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/05/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Donald W. Riegle

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 5, 1985 The Honorable Donald W. Riegle, Jr. SD-185 United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Attn: Mike Manual Dear Senator Riegle: This letter is in further response to your inquiry concerning school bus seating issues raised by your constituent, Mr. Dennis Furr. I regret the delay in our response. Mr. Furr is interested in amending our safety standards to limit the number of passengers that a school bus may carry. He suggests reducing the passenger capacity of a standard 72-passenger school bus by the use of different seat configurations. I would like to begin by explaining that our agency has two sets of regulations, issued under different acts of Congress, that apply to school buses. The first of these, the motor vehicle safety standards issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381-1426), apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. In a 1974 amendment to the Vehicle Safety Act, Congress directed us to issue standards on specific aspects of school bus safety, such as seating systems, windows and windshields, emergency exits, and fuel systems. The standards we issued became effective April 1, 1977, and apply to each school bus manufactured on or after that date. One of those standards is Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Your constituent is correct that our safety standards so not limit the overall passenger capacity of a school bus. This is because the agency is not aware of any safety problem associated with the way manufacturers rate the capacity of their buses. We believe that manufacturers should be able to design their school buses to carry any number of passengers, provided that the appropriate occupant requirements of Standard No. 222 are met. Paragraph S4.1 of Standard No. 222 states that: The number of seating positions considered to be in a bench seat is expressed by the symbol W, and calculated as the bench width in inches divided by 15 and rounded to the nearest whole number. The number of seating positions in a bench seat, expressed by "W," is calculated to determine the amount of force school bus seats must withstand in order to provide adequate crash protection for passengers. School bus seats must comply with the standard's requirements for forward and rearward performance by withstanding specified amounts of applied energy. The amount of energy applied to a particular bench seat is dependent on the number of seating positions. As that number increases, the amount of force the seat must withstand likewise increases.

In accordance with S4.1, a 39-inch bench seat is assumed to have 3 designated seating positions. We recognize that such seats may be occupied by fewer persons, but that calculation helps to assure that the seat provides adequate protection when occupied by the maximum number. School buses with 24 39-inch bench seats are therefore assumed to carry 72 passengers. The school bus manufacturer must ensure that each bench seat meets the forward and rearward performance requirements, and all other applicable requirements of Standard No. 222, based on the calculations of seating positions and the required force applications. Mr. Furr suggests alternative seating configurations for school buses. He suggests that bench seats on a school bus, currently designated by a manufacturer to carry 72 passengers, should be designed with rows of 47-inch and 31-inch bench seats. Mr. Furr believed that a 47-inch bench seat and a 31-inch bench seat could carry 3 and 2 passengers, respectively, for a total passengers capacity of 60 for the school bus. He suggests a change in the regulation to reflect this design change. NHTSA is not aware of any data indicating that there is a safety problem associated with the seating capacity of school buses to justify a rule-making action amending Standard No. 222. From our experience with Standard No. 222, some school districts appear to have concerns that actions reducing seating capacity in their vehicles might result in the need to purchase additional buses at substantial costs. Since we are not aware of any information indicating that a safety need exists to regulate the capacity of a school bus, we do not believe that it is necessary to amend Standard No. 222 in the manner suggested by Mr. Furr. Further, no amendment is necessary to permit local school districts to order seat configurations such as those suggested by Mr. Furr. The districts may do so now as long as manufacturers can ensure that their school buses meet all the applicable performance requirements of our safety standards. The second set of regulations administered by NHTSA was issued under the authority of the Highway Safety Act of 1966 (23 U.S.C. 401-408). Those regulations, which are more in the nature of guidelines, apply to state highway safety programs and cover a wide range of subjects, including school buses. Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17 (HSPS 17), Pupil Transportation Safety, contains guidelines for the identification, maintenance, and operation of school vehicles. HSPS 17 does not set a limit on the seating capacity of school buses. It does, however, recommend that school districts design their bus routes to utilize fully the capacity of the bus, while avoiding standees. You may wish to consult with the State of Michigan to determine to what extent that state has adopted the provisions of HSPS 17. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding. I hope this information is helpful in responding to your constituent. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Original Signed By Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel Enclosure: Constituent's Correspondence

ID: 1985-03.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: V. Stuart James -- Executive Vice President, X-Ten Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. V. Stuart James Executive Vice President X-Ten Corporation 855 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94111

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, asking for an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 121 Air Brake Systems (49 CFR S571.121). Specifically you asked if the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 must be satisfied by trailers which are "heavy hauler trailers" within the meaning of S4. As Mr. Kratzke told you conversation, heavy hauler trailers are exempted from all the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.

You stated that your company is manufacturing extendable container chassis trailers. The brake lines in those vehicles are designed to extend with the vehicle frame. S4 of Standard No. 121 defines, in part, a heavy hauler trailer as a trailer whose "brake lines are designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame...." Thus, your trailer would be considered a heavy hauler trailer for the purposes of Standard No. 121.

Section S5.3 sets forth road test requirements, compliance with which must be certified for all trucks, buses and trailers. Generally, all trailers are required to be certified as complying with the timing requirements of S5.3.3 and S5.3.4. This general rule is limited by the last sentence of S5.3, which specifies, "However, a heavy hauler trailer and the truck and trailer portions of an auto transporter need not meet the requirements of S5.3." Emphasis added Thus, heavy hauler trailers are expressly exempted from all of the requirements of S5.3, including the timing requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

May 24, 1985

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I refer you to our telephone conversation of Wednesday, May 22, 1985 reference X-Ten Corporation's extendable container chassis trailer, VersachassisTM. You may recall that a clarification is needed on the applicability of 49 CFR 571.121 Paragraphs S 5.3.3 and S 5.3.4. The trailer in its present form meets all requirements of 49 CFR 571.121 but may not meet the timing requirements detailed in these paragraphs.

It is X-Ten's submission that the trailer is not required to meet the timing specification because the trailer is classifiable as a "heavy hauler trailer" or other specially equipped trailer in accordance with 49 CFR 571.121 Paragraph S 4 "Definitions". One of the characteristics of a "heavy hauler trailer" is defined as having "brake lines designed to adapt to separation or extension of the vehicle frame". This characteristic and language precisely describe the air line arrangement on X-Ten's trailer.

Further, Truck Trailer Manufacturer's Association Recommended Practice number RP 58-81 dated June 10, 1981 (copy enclosed) suggest that the trailer is exempt from the timing requirement. The method and series of decisions used to reach this conclusion are marked on the "flow chart" enclosed.

The trailer has a tare weight of approximately 8,200 pounds, a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 60,000 pounds, a Gross Axle Weight Rating intermediate (1) of 26,000 pounds, and a Gross Axle Weight Rating intermediate (2) of 34,000 pounds.

To summarize, X-Ten Corporation understands that the trailer is to comply with all aspects of 49 CFR 571.121 except Paragraphs S 5.3.3 and S 5.3.4 from which the trailer is specifically excluded. X-Ten would appreciate an opinion expressed by the Office of Chief Counsel to either confirm or refute this understanding.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, V. Stuart James Executive Vice President VSJ:eg

ID: 1985-03.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/09/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Yoshikazu Ito, Manager, Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept. Tokai Rika Co., Ltd. Oguchi-Cho, Aichi Pref. 480-01 Japan

Thank you for your letter concerning the buckle release requirements of Standard No. 208. Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in responding to it. You asked for an interpretation of the requirement in S4.5.3.3(a) of the standard that automatic belts must have an emergency release mechanism that is "readily accessible to a seated occupant." The following discussion addresses the specific questions you asked.

The purpose of the "readily accessible" requirement is to ensure that a seated occupant can quickly and easily grasp and then release the buckle in an emergency. You explained that you have been reviewing the accessibility of possible installation locations for the emergency release by using a 5th percentile female and 50th percentile male test dummy in various seating positions. You ask whether in determining if the buckle is readily accessible, you can move the pelvic portion of the test dummy or move the seat back to permit the grasping of the buckle.

The purpose of S4.5.3.3(a) is twofold. First, it is intended to make sure automatic belts are adjustable to fit a wide range of vehicle occupants, as specified in S7.1 of the standard. In addition, it is meant to ensure that the emergency release mechanism for the automatic belt is readily accessible to that same range of occupants. Thus, the release mechanism should be accessible to those occupants with the seat in any design position without the occupant having to take special steps, such as moving the seat back, to grasp and operate the release. I note that the drawing you attached to your letter indicates that your emergency release is located within the latchplate access zone specified in S7.4.4 of the standard. Although S7.4.4 does not apply to the emergency release mechanism of automatic belts, its purpose is to make it easy for occupants to reach the latchplate of a safety belt system. We would consider any emergency release mechanism required by S4.5.3.3(a) that is within the latchplate access zone of S7.4.4 to be readily accessible as long as the occupant does not have to take any special steps to grasp and operate the release.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

TOKAI RIDA CO., LTD.

ESL85/1-7955 February 22, 1985

Ms. Betrinere Stewart Library Technician Technical Reference Division National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Ms. Stewart:

Although somewhat belatedly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to your many kindest assistances extended to me when I visited your office. The information we received from you is very valuable.

In the meantime, we have some questions regarding how a sentence of Standard No. 208 should be interpreted, and its details are explained in the attachment.

Would you therefore please give us appropriate answer, and if you are not in a position to reply, you would kindly pass this question to a competent officer so that we may receive the answer.

Your favourable consideration in this matter would be much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

TOKAI RIKA CO., LTD.

Yoshikazu Ito, Manager Technical Operations Section Overseas Operations Dept.

YI/yi

Attachments

CC: Mr. T. Tanabe, TR/USO

Stipulation: S4.5.3.3, No. 208

An automatic belt furnished pursuant to S4.5.3. shall: (a) conform to S7.1 and have a single emergency release mechanism whose components are readily accessible to a seated occupant.

1. Background of the question:

In designing of a certain passive belt system to be installed on our customer's vehicles, a detachable type buckle for emergency release is built in.

When installing the system on the vehicles, it is difficult for a seated occupant to access to the buckle in some cases (See attachment). So we ask you to give us your appropriate interpretation on the following cases.

2. Question

-1. What is a meaning of the sentence, " ..... whose components are readily accessible to a seated occupant"?

(Our Interpretation)

"readily accessible to" means strictly that a seated occupant can grasp the buckle and then release it in case of emergency.

-2. When reviewing installation condition by using Alderson female dummy (5th percentile), at any seating position (forwardmost, neutral or rearmost), if it is difficult that the dummy access to the buckle, whether the following condition(s) are permitted or not:

a. an occupant (dummy) would be permitted to raise her pelvic portion slightly in order to grasp the buckle.

b. an occupant (dummy) would be permitted to bring down the seat-back in order to grasp easily the buckle.

-3. When reviewing installation condition by using Alderson male dummy (50th percentile), at forwardmost and neutral seating position, if it is difficult that the dummy access to the buckle, whether the followings are permitted or not:

a. the same to above condition - 2-a.

b. the same to above condition - 2-b.

ID: 1985-03.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/10/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; SOURCE UNAVAILABLE

TO: Mr. Donald H. Giberson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety 25 South Montgomery Street Trenton, New Jersey 08666

Dear Mr. Giberson:

Thank you for your letter of May 17, 1985, to Stephen Oesch of my staff concerning the decorative etching of glazing in vehicles and how it may be affected by our regulations. You explained that the etching is apparently being done by using either vibrator tools with carbide tips, ultra high speed grinders, or sandblasters. You expressed concern that the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that obstructs the vision of the driver.

You further explained that glazing with etching that obstructs the driver's vision is rejected by your inspectors during New Jersey's annual motor vehicle inspection, but that glazing in areas not used for driving vision cannot be rejected for the same reason. You asked for our comments on this issue.

I hope that the following discussion of how our regulations could affect the practice of etching glass is of assistance. As you know, our agency has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which sets performance requirements for glazing materials used in new vehicles or sold as items of replacement equipment; a copy of Standard No. 205 is enclosed. If the windows are etched before the vehicle or the piece of replacement glazing is sold, then the person doing the etching would have to certify that the glazing continues to be in compliance with all of the requirements of Standard No. 205, including the light transmittance requirement for glazing in areas requisite for driving visibility. We would be particularly concerned whether the etched items of glazing would continue to comply with the impact resistance requirements of the standard. Please note that impact tests have to be met by items of AS1, AS2, AS3, AS4, AS5, AS8, AS9, AS1O, AS11A, AS11B and AS14 glazing regardless of whether the glazing is used in an area requisite for driving visibility. Purchasers of a new vehicle or glazing may themselves alter the vehicle or glazing as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements.

If the etching is done in used vehicles, then Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act may apply; a copy of that section of the Act is enclosed. That section provides that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. Thus, none of those persons may etch a vehicle's glazing if by so doing they would knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's glazing with Standard No. 205. Violation of this section can result in Federal civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

May 17, 1985

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of Chief Council NHTSA 400 - 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It has come to our attention that the glazing on many vehicles registered in New Jersey, is being decoratively etched after it has been installed in the vehicle by the manufacturer. We know of three methods being used to etch the glass.

Most people are using vibrator tools with carbide tips, but others are using ultra high speed grinders or sandblasting techniques. The vibrators often leave grooves in the glass deeper than those which could be inscribed with a glass cutting tool.

We are concerned with this problem because the integrity of the glass may be affected and in some cases the etching is in a position that vision is obstructed.

I have enclosed three pictures of vehicles equipped with etched window glass. In each of these cases, the etching is in a position which will interfere with driver visibility. Therefore, the glazing would be rejected during annual inspection and the hazard eliminated.

Etching which is placed on glazing in areas not used for drivers visibility cannot be rejected for the same reason. Although there is a strong likelihood that the glass has been weakened, we are not sure how to handle such cases.

Your advice on this matter would be appreciated. If you need additional information, please advise. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG:WH:rc

Enclosures

cc: Edward Jettner, NHTSA Edward Gyarfas, NJ DMV