ID: aiam4794

Dear Mr. Mitzenberg: This is in reply to your letter requesting a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Your company offers an optional transmission retarder for supplemental braking. During initial travel of the service brake pedal, the retarder is electrically operated and the stop lamps are activated. As the service brake pedal is further depressed, air is emitted from the brake valve and the service brakes are activated. You have asked whether a noncompliance with S4.5.4 would result. This section (now renumbered S5.5.4) states that the stop lamps shall be activated upon application of the service brakes. You point out that if the stop lamps are activated by the retarder, the stop lamps could be illuminated without the service brakes actually being applied during the initial travel of the service brake pedal, and up until the point in time that air is actually emitted from the brake pedal and into the service brake system. In our opinion, there is no failure to comply by the system as you have described it. We view application of the brake pedal as evidencing an intent to slow or stop the vehicle. Thus, the operation of the stop lamp is a consequence of the application of the brake pedal. We appreciate your interest in enhancing safety with the added benefits that the retarder provides in early activation of the stop lamp. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel;

ID: nht74-2.46

DATE: 12/04/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Andrew G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0203) concerning trailers equipped with Standard Forge axles which may have defective brake shoes.

The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject trailers does not completely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter describes the defect as existing in the brake shoes. Part 577.4(b), however, requires that in cases where a vehicle manufacturer is notifying owners of vehicles, the letter must state that a defect exists in the vehicle itself. The reference to motor vehicle equipment applies only to equipment campaigns where vehicles are not directly involved. Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by Part 577.4(d) since it does not state that the vehicle crash without warning may occur. Although the statement that reduced braking power or lockup may result may suggest the possibility of a crash to many owners, it is not entirely adequate.

Although mailing of a revised notification letter will not be required, it is expected that in the event that another defect notification campaign ever becomes necessary in the future, the notification letters conform completely with the regulations.

A copy of Part 577 is enclosed. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840.

Sincerely,

Andrew G. Detrick -- Acting Director, Office of Defects Investigation Motor Vehicle Programs

Enclosure

ATTACH.

MATLOCK TRUCK BODY & TRAILER CORP.

February 11, 1975

Wolfgang Reinhart -- Office of Defects Investigation Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: N41-62 re

Dear Mr. Reinhart: I received Mr. Andrew G. Detrick's letter of December the 4th, 1974 in regard to our defect notification campaign (#74-0203). He stated that my letter did not completely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR) in two specific items. I am returning a copy of his letter with the two points in question underlined in red and marked 1 and 2. Also, I am enclosing a copy of my letter of defect notification with the "answers" underlined in red and marked 1 and 2.

Please note that in the point marked 1 that my letter states that the defect exist in the brake shoes on Matlock MTE (electronic trailers).

In the second point, perhaps we were not specific enough about the possibility of a crash, but we were only quoting the statement in Standard Forge's letter to us.

We sent all the information to Standard Forge concerning the recall after receiving a letter from Mr. Detrick on January the 6th, 1975. In accordance with his letter, we will not submit the quarterly reports. A copy of the letter to Standard Forge is also enclosed.

Yours truly,

Curtis Eddy Vice President - Engineering

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the brake shoes of Standard Forge axles with 12 1/4" x 7 1/2" brakes on Matlock Model MTE (electronic trailers). These axles are used only with 15" wheels and on trailers produced between February 1, 1974 and October 31, 1974.

Standard Forge and Axle Company, one of the world's largest manufacturers of trailer axles, made a change in the brake shoe attachment on some of the axles made for highway trailers early in 1974. After several months of operation, some of these axles have caused brake problems.

Standard Forge has been very prompt in their actions to correct any problems of approximately 5000 axles that are involved. Matlock received only 438 of these axles or about 9%. The other 91% have gone to others, including most of the leading trailer manufacturers.

The axles concerned are only those with 15" wheels with 12 1/4" x 5 1/4" or 12 1/4" x 7 1/2" brakes. Matlock uses only the heavier 12 1/4" x 7 1/2" brakes. If you have a trailer other than a Matlock, as a safety precaution, you might check the brakes yourself or contact your trailer supplier.

Approximately 200 of the 438 axles supplied to Matlock have been corrected already, or are in our plant and will be corrected prior to shipment of new trailers.

For your information, a copy of the letter from Standard Forge alerting trailer companies of a possible problem is enclosed.

The second paragraph of Standard Forge's letter explains the condition that might cause the malfunction and the result of such an occurance. Note that breakage can occur without warning, resulting in reduced braking power or lockup.

We instruct you to remove from service immediately any trailer that has an axle in the list that follows until the brake shoes can be replaced.

Also enclosed is a drawing showing both the correct and incorrect brake shoes. The casting number on the brake shoe will be 201103 on both the correct and incorrect brake shoe. However, the two can be easily distinguished by the shape of the end of the brake shoe. The ones that should be replaced have had the ends milled off; the replacement, or newer parts, have a closed end.

Matlock is attempting to do everything possible to minimize any inconvenience to you. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Please follow the procedure as outlined below:

1. Check the serial number on each axle used with 15" wheels. The serial number is located in the center of the axle on the name tag. If it is a Standard Forge axle and has one of the serial numbers in this list, the brake shoes should be checked and changed if they are the incorrect brake shoes. Some of the axles in this list, however, have already had the brake shoes replaced. If the brake shoes are the correct type on one end of the axle, it will not be necessary to pull the drums on the other end. We will allow one and one-half (1 1/2) hours labor per axle for checking only. In order to be reimbursed for this labor, you MUST send us the trailer serial number and the axle serial number. Be sure that the axle serial number is contained in this list, as we will not pay for labor for axles not contained in this list. 14074 thru 14083 33207 thru 33242 20199 " 20212 34011 " 34035 20213 " 20226 34036 " 34060 24535 " 24634 34111 " 34210 25128 " 25137 36406 " 36465 25348 " 25357 42395 " 42494 27572 " 27589 46360 " 46365

NOTE: If you have a Matlock trailer with 15" wheels, and you cannot read the serial number on the axle, pull the brake drum on one side of each axle to be sure that you do have brake shoes that are the correct type.

2. You may bring your trailer to our plant in Nashville or to our branch in Knoxville for the required rework. You may do the work in your own shop, or you may take it to any reputable trailer repair shop such as, but not limited to, Dorsey, Fruehauf, Great Dane, Lufkin, Nabors, Strick, Timpte, Trailmobile, or Utility. If you have any question as to where you should take your trailer for repair, you may call Mr. Jim Waters of Standard Forge and Axle Company, in Montgomery, Alabama, (205) - 269-1271.

3. The replacement parts are available now and should be ordered from Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation, 1070 Visco Drive, Nashville, Tennessee 37210 - (615) - 259-2000.

The replacement parts will be shipped and invoiced to you at regular parts prices. We will allow up to five (5) hours labor per axle to replace these parts, although we believe that four (4) hours will be sufficient in most cases. Oil seats will be furnished and must be replaced.

You will be given full credit for parts, labor and freight both ways when the parts that are replaced are returned to us in Nashville, freight prepaid. The parts should be returned to the above address and marked to the attention of Mr. Tom Hartigan.

IMPORTANT: All parts returned MUST have the trailer serial number and the axle serial number on the shipping crate and on your invoice to us.

If you have sold or otherwise disposed of a trailer that was built between February 1, 1974 and October 31, 1974, please send us the name and address of the buyer or the disposition of the trailer.

We want to tell you that when you deal with Matlock, you are dealing with a reliable supplier that wants to correct this safety defect. We appreciate your business and would like to take this opportunity to solicit your order for the coming year for your trailer and truck body needs.

Yours truly,

Curtis Eddy Vice President - Engineering

ID: nht78-4.27

DATE: 03/10/78

FROM: JAMES TYDINGS, -- THOMAS BUILT BUSES, SPECIFICATIONS ENGINEER

TO: ROGER TILTON -- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: FMVSS #217 - SECTION 5.2, "PROVISION OF EMERGENCY EXITS".

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO L.T. MITCHELL; REDBOOK A31, VSA 102, SEC 571 DEFINITION; STANDARD 208, 222; LETTER DATED 08/21/87 FROM L. T. MITCHELL TO ERIKA Z. JONES RE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ON FMVSS 222 ON SCHOOL BUSES WITH GVWR OF 10,000 POUNDS OR LESS; OCC-945; LETTER DATED 05/11/78 FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN TO JAMES TYDINGS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Tilton;

Confirming our phone conversation of March 10, 1978, regarding the above Standard and Section.

Our question revolved around the number of openings (Push-Out Windows) for a bus with wide seats (39" width) for adults.

The case we cited was that the 39" seat would be used by only two adults per seat. This was for comfort reasons. Yet in reading the definition of a "Designated Seating Position" where it speaks to "at least as large as a fifth percentile adult female", the seat could provide for three females of the above size or smaller.

Our contention was that our intent and that of the user was that the seat would be occupied by only two adults, and we would base our calculations upon that number to establish the number of exits.

It was further discussed that there would be no intent on our part tothe safety provisions of the standard.

We also suggested that we would label the vehicle seating capacity on insidevehicle in plain sight. To this you agreed, stating that it would be

Trusting this is an accurate record of conversation, we shall look forward to concurrence in this matter.

ID: aiam5512

"Dear Mr. Reagle: This is in reply to your recent FAX to Pat Boyd o this agency asking for a confirmation of an interpretation of certain reflex reflector requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, specifically S5.7.2.1(b) and (c). For your future reference, requests for interpretation should be addressed to the Chief Counsel. You state that Mr. Boyd informed you that 'any retro-reflector would have to be made in intervals of 4 inches' with the 0 degree at the two-inch mark, and that the reflective reading would have to comply with S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). He also informed you that, regardless of whether the segment was 4, 8, or 12 inches in length, the agency will test in 4-inch segments. This is correct. According to paragraph S5.7.2.2(a) and (b) of Standard No. 108, each reflector shall be installed 'with the center of each reflector not more than 100 mm from the center of each adjacent reflector.' As 100 mm is approximately 4 inches, this effectively limits the size of a reflector to a maximum length of 4 inches. However, this does not prohibit the mounting of two or three adjacent reflectors in 'segments' of 8 or 12 inches, whether separately or in a housing. As Mr. Boyd informed you, each discrete 4-inch segment must comply with paragraph S5.7.2.1(b) or (c). Paragraphs S5.7.2.1(b) and (c) specify reflectivity values for red and white reflex reflectors respectively 'at any light entrance angle between 30 degrees left and 30 degrees right, including an entrance angle of 0 degrees,' as well as 'any light entrance angle between 45 degrees left and 45 degrees right.' Your drawing of a 4-inch reflector correctly depicts the 0 degree light entrance angle at the 2-inch mark, in the center of the reflector. However, SAE Standard J594f, Reflex Reflectors, January 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, requires the measurement of the other light entrance angles also with respect to the center of the reflector, rather than with respect to the ends as pictured in your drawing. If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263). Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam0637

Dear Mr. Bright: Your letter of February 18, 1972, dealt with three aspects of Standar 215 that continue to be of concern to Chrysler and with one feature of Standard 210 that you regard as inappropriate.; Your first problem with Standard 215 is the requirement for corne impacts at heights below 20 inches. Our response to the objections raised by Chrysler and others when this requirement was made a part of the standard was to grant an additional two years for compliance. We did this in the expectation that the additional time would permit the manufacturers to make the necessary changes within their normal tooling cycle.; The agency considered the corner impact requirement to be justified and it is not now persuaded to the contrary. We would be willing, however, to review any additional information you can provide on the subject of the costs and benefits of the improved corners.; Your second concern has also been expressed at several points in th rulemaking process. In response to comments advocating the use of resilient materials in the bumper itself, the standard was amended to specify a broader impact ridge, rather than to specify the resiliency of material with which contact would be permitted. The agency has not considered the styling effects of the pendulum requirement to be sufficient to justify amending the standard to permit cosmetic additions of the type you describe. Of course you are free to submit additional information to support the need for such an amendment.; The photometric requirements from Standard 108 that are proposed fo incorporation in Standard 215 have been the subject of several comments under Notice 10 in Dockets 1-9 and 1-20. The issue has not been resolved by issuance of a final rule and we will therefore consider your remarks as an addition to Chrysler's comments on Notice 10.; In the area of seat belt anchorages, the question of whether to us dynamic or static test methods was resolved in October 1970 by specifying a static test with a 10-second holding period. It was thought that this was the surest means of testing the basic strength of the metal and that it therefore carried out the original intent of the standard. Although it may be that the resulting anchorages are able to withstand barrier crashes at speeds considerably higher than 30 mph, we do not consider this to be sufficient cause for relaxing the anchorage requirement. If you have information concerning the force levels at which accidents are survivable, and the relation of these levels to anchorage strength, we would be glad to receive this information.; Sincerely, Douglas W. Toms, Administrator

ID: nht71-3.3

DATE: 05/17/71

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

TO: Toyota Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 1 seeking a clarification of paragraph S4.1.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104.

We confirm your understanding that S4.1.2 excludes any part of wiped areas A, B, and C that lie outside the perimeter line. Change of your driver's seating reference point to meet the proposed requirements of Standard No. 201 does not affect the percentage of area A, assuming no change in the perimeter line.

ID: aiam4405

Dear Mr Shimamura: This responds to your letter concerning the requirements of Standar No. 105, *Hydraulic Brake Systems*, for brake indicator lamps. The second sentence of section S5.3.2 of the standard provides that in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation of the indicator lamp(s) as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. You asked if this provision can be interpreted to apply to vehicles equipped with a manual transmission and fitted with a clutch pedal interlock switch, based on a purported equivalent function of the clutch pedal starter interlock switch to the automatic transmission starter interlock. As discussed below, the answer to your question is no. As requested by your letter, we will consider your request as a petition for rulemaking and process it accordingly.; By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safet Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.; Section S5.3.2 of the standard states: >>>All indicator lamps shall be activated as a check of lamp functio either when the ignition (start) switch is turned to the 'on' (run) position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition (start) switch is in a position between 'on' (run) and 'start' that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. However, in vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission, the activation as a check of lamp function is not required when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.<<<; The second sentence of section S5.3.2 was not originally included i Standard No. 105. In adding the sentence, NHTSA stated the following:; >>>. . . Toyota Motor Sales, Inc., has requested confirmation tha S5.3.2 of the standard requires a check of the brake system indicator lamp function only when the transmission shift lever is in the 'P' (park) or 'N' (neutral) position (in the case of vehicles with automatic transmission). The literal wording of S5.3.2 requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever, whenever the ignition switch is turned to the 'on' position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition switch is in a position between 'on' and 'start' that is designed by the manufacturer as a check position. In the case of vehicles with an automatic transmission, however, this wording does not reflect the NHTSA's intent with respect to check function. To properly reflect this intent, the language of S5.3.2 is hereby modified in accordance with Toyota's request. . . . 40 FR 42872, September 17, 1975.<<<; Thus, except to the extent provided by the second sentence of sectio S5.3.2, that section requires a check of lamp function without regard to the position of the transmission shift lever, whenever the ignition switch is turned to the 'on' position when the engine is not running, or when the ignition switch is in a position between 'on' and 'start' that is designated by the manufacturer as a check position. Since the second sentence of section S5.3.2 specifically applies only to 'vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission,' we conclude that the sentence cannot be applied to vehicles equipped with a manual transmission.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: 08-004151drn

ID: nht88-1.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/18/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: HOWARD SMOLKIN -- MANAGING DIRECTOR

TITLE: THE MEANING OF PRACTICABILITY AND THE VEHICLE SAFETY ACT

TEXT: Attached per your request is a discussion of the meaning of "practicable" under the Vehicle Safety Act, for use in connection with the next meeting of the Research Advisory Committee.

Attachment

PRACTICABILITY AND THE VEHICLE SAFETY ACT

This paper provides a general discussion of the meaning of "practicable" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act). The Vehicle Safety Act directs the Secretary of Transportation, or his or her delegate, to issue Feder al motor vehicle safety standards that "shall be practicable, shall meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms." 15 U.S.C. @ 1392(a). (Emphasis added.) See also 15 U.S.C. @ 1391(2). In issuing these standards, the Se cretary is directed to consider "relevant available motor vehicle safety data," whether the proposed standard "is reasonable, practicable and appropriate" for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescri bed, and the "extent to which such standards will contribute to carrying out the purposes of the Act." 15 U.S.C. 1392(f)(1), (3), (4). (Emphasis added.)

The dictionary defines "practicable" as "capable of being done, effected, or put into practice, with the available means; feasible: a practicable solution." Random House Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged edition). Courts construing the term under the Vehicle Safety Act have generally relied on the following statements in the legislative history:

House Report: "In establishing standards the Secretary must conform to the requirement that the standard be practicable. This would require consideration of all relevant factors, including technological ability to achieve the goal of a particular sta ndard as well as consideration of economic factors." H. R. Rep. 1776 at 16.

Senate Report: "The committee intends that safety shall be the overriding consideration in the issuance of standards under this bill. The committee recognizes . . . that the Secretary will necessarily consider reasonableness of cost, feasibility and adequate leadtime." S. Rep. 1301, p.6.

The court decisions construing the term "practicable" have established several general principles about its meaning. First, while NHTSA must bear in mind that Congress intended safety to be the preeminent factor under the Vehicle Safety Act, the agency is to look at costs as well as benefits. In Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 54-55 (1983), a case reviewing a recission by the agency of the automatic restraint requirements, the Supreme Court concluded that the agency had been correct to look at the costs as well as the benefits of the requirements. NHTSA had determined that the incremental costs of the requirements were no longer reasonable based on its prediction that the safety benefits of the regulation might be minimal. In this instance, the court required a reexamination of the agency's conclusion that the safety benefits might be minimal. The court stated that when the agency examined its findings as to the likely safety benefits, it must also reconsider i ts judgment of the reasonableness of the monetary and other costs associated with the standard, bearing in mind that Congress intended safety to be the preeminent factor under the Act.

A second principle is that NHTSA must conduct careful analysis of the economic impacts of safety standards. In H & H Tire Co. v. DOT, 471 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1972), a case reviewing a safety standard requiring retreaded tires to meet many of the same per formance requirements as new tires, the court concluded that NHTSA had not adequately investigated the practicability of the standard. The court found that current retread tires could not comply with the requirements and that there was a possibility tha t the industry's best efforts might be insufficient to insure prompt compliance. The court concluded that NHTSA had acted precipitately, adopting a rule which might possibly destroy a well-established industry, without adequate study. The court also in dicated that NHTSA must consider possible economic hardships of both manufacturers and customers. Note: The court agreed with the government that "the fact that a government regulation may cause economic hardship to a party does not make such regulation unreasonable" and stated that the deleterious economic effect on the industry of compliance with the standard at issue might be permissible if retreads unquestionably were major safety hazards and if compliance with the standard clearly enhanced retread s' safety under on-the-road conditions. 471 F.2d at 354.

A third principle is that NHTSA may issue safety standards that are technology-forcing. In Chrysler v. DOT, 472 F.2d 659 (6th Cir. 1972), a case reviewing a safety standard requiring vehicles to be equipped with automatic restraints, the court held that NHTSA has authority to issue safety standards which require improvements in existing technology or which require the development of new technology, and is not limited to issuing standards based solely on devices already developed.

A fourth principle is that NHTSA must consider the public acceptability of safety standards. In Pacific Legal Foundation v. DOT, 593 F.2d 1338 (D.C. Cir. 1979), a case reviewing a safety standard requiring vehicles to be equipped with automatic restrain ts, the court held that consideration of public reaction is part of the requirement that standards be practicable. The court stated that "(m)uch as economic analysis must evaluate both supply and demand conditions, motor vehicle safety standards cannot be considered practicable unless we know both that the needed production capability is within reach and that motorists will avail themselves of the safety system." 593 F.2d at 1345.

Finally, the meaning of the term "practicable" appears to differ depending upon whether it is applied to a mandatory or optional provision in a safety standard. In Chrysler v. DOT, 515 F.2d 1053, 1060 (6th Cir. 1975), Chrysler argued that a standard perm itting use of rectangular headlamps, as an alternative to round headlamps, for a specified time period was impracticable because that company could not complete the necessary engineering and retooling in time to produce automobiles equipped with the new headlamps before the option expired. In dicta, the court stated that it had "some doubt that practicability is a significant principle in the context of an optional provision in a safety standard." The court stated that a review of the cases in this are a suggests the practicability requirement was designed primarily to prevent NHTSA from establishing mandatory safety requirements that are economically or technologically infeasible. The court contrasted that situation with the one at bar, in which the use of rectangular headlamps was not required, and Chrysler was not subject to any statutory penalties for failing to comply with this aspect of the standard. The court also stated that even assuming that an optional requirement were required to be prac ticable, it would be difficult to conclude that the rectangular headlamp option was impracticable in any absolute sense, since at least two manufacturers were capable of producing rectangular headlamps.

ID: nht87-1.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AIR MAIL

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. l.Daihatsu-cho, Ikeda City Osaka Prefecture JAPAN

Dear Mr. Tsujishita:

Thank you for your letter requesting an interpretation of the requirements of three of our safety standards. This letter responds to your questions concerning Standard No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion. regret the delay in this response. We will be resp onding to each of your questions concerning the other two standards in separate letters.

Your questions about Standard No. 219 concerns the requirement of S5 of the standard. That section provides as follows:

When the vehicle traveling longitudinally forward at any speed up to and including 30 mph impacts a fixed collision barrier that is perpendicular to the line of travel of the vehicle, under the conditions of 57, no part of the vehicle outside the occupan t compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, affixed according to 56, to a depth of more than one-quarter inch, and no such part of a ve hicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield, within the DLO, below the protected zone defined in 56. (Emphasis added.)

Your specific question concerns a situation in which a windshield wiper penetrates the protected zone template during a crash test because, for example, the wiper was pushed rearward by the deformation of the cowl or the wiper switch was contacted by the test dummy during the crash, thus turning on the wiper. You noted that the wiper blades are normally in contact with the windshield, but that the wiper arms only contact the windshield through the wiper blades. You asked whether the agency would conside r the penetration of the wiper blade and arm into the protected zone template to be a violation of the standard. As discussed below, the answer is no, the penetration of the wiper blade and arm would not be a Violation of the standard.

As you observed in your letter, the wiper blade is designed to be normally in contact with the windshield and is thus exempt from the requirements of the standard. While the arm Hill not be in direct contact with the windshield, the blade attached to the arm does contact the windshield. Also, the wiper arm is a small, light structure which, while not in direct contact with the windshield, is mounted only h fraction of an inch above the surface of the windshield and should pose little or no penetration h azard. Thus, the agency will consider the wiper arm, which is an integral part of the exempted wiper blade, to be exempted as well.

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

Sincerely,

Erica Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Dec. 24, 1986

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Dear Ms. Jones:

The purpose of this letter is to respectfully inquire NHTSA's interpretations with regard to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) Nos. 101, 201, and 219.

We wish we could have your early and kind response to the questions on the following pages.

We thank you in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

H. Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator of Technical Administration Dept. Head Office

Enclosure : QUESTIONNAIRE (1),(2),(3)

cc: Mr. R. Busick, Olson Engineering Inc.

QUESTIONNAIRE (3)

FHVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion Paragraph 55 of FMVSS No. 219 provides When the vehicle .. no part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, shall penetrate the protected zone template, ...." In the case that the wi ndshield wiper penetrate the protected zone template ( by some reason such as pushed by the deformed cowl or accidentally turned-on of wiper switch as a result of contact with test dummy), we would like to confirm whether the vehicle is deemed in complia nce or not: (Refer to the illustration below)

We believe the penetration of wiper blades shall be deemed in compliance because the wiper blades are designed to be normally contact with the windshield. The wiper arms, however, only contact with the windshield though the wiper blade. Please advise us about the exemption of wiper arms from this intrusion provision. SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS