ID: aiam4116

Dear Mr. Fish: We regret the delay in responding to your letter (14/1/9) date September 18, 1985, to Mr. Francis Armstrong requesting information in relation to our compliance test report number 213-CAL-83-011. Your letter was referred to my office.; In your letter you asked for an interpretation of Standard No. 213 *Child Restraint Systems*, regarding the reason for the test laboratory marking two parts of the test procedure as not applicable to your child restraint. The two answers to your specific questions are as follows:; 1. Page 12--*Resistance to Microorganisms*. Polyester and nylon, whic comprise 100% of all vehicle seat belt and child seat harness webbing, are inherently resistant to microorganisms. Therefore, in an exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, the agency has thus far chosen not to conduct this test on nylon and polyester belts. If a child restraint harness or vehicle seat belt were found to be made of cotton or some other fibrous material, the resistance to microorganisms test would be conducted on those materials. In addition, the agency reserves the authority to test nylon and polyester belts as well, although it has no plans to do so.; 2. Page 26--S5.4.3.3. *Seating Systems*. The requirements of S5.4.3. apply to child restraints that are 'designed for use by a child in a seated position.' Infant restraints are designed to place the child in a rear-facing, semi-recumbent position instead of a seated position and therefore S5.4.3.3 is not applicable to them. Since infant restraints are rear-facing, the major forces acting on the child's body from vehicle deceleration are exerted by the foam liner/plastic shell instead of the belt system. In addition, all infant restraints on the market are equipped with a three-point harness (shoulder belt/crotch strap) to position the child and hold him or her in the restraint during rebound.; Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-4.22

DATE: 05/23/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Claude S. Brinegar; NHTSA

TO: National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to the March 15 resolution of the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council urging removal of the legal barriers to the introduction of passive restraint systems, I can report that the Department has taken a major step in the direction the Council urges. The proposed test dummy regulation, published April 2, is intended to permit manufacturers to produce vehicles with passive restraint systems under either of the passive options available before passive restraints become mandatory. Upon adoption of the proposed regulation and of the corresponding amendment to Standard 208, the first barrier addressed in the Council's resolution will be removed.

The Council's second concern is with the seat belt installation laws of the States. It would be unfortunate if these laws interfere with the evaluation of fully passive restraint systems. The Department will take such steps as seem advisable to remove any legal obstruction to the manufacture and use of vehicles with fully passive systems. We expect to announce our position on this point shortly.

ID: 571-108--backup lamps of truck tractor cab--Daimler Trucks

ID: aiam3237

Dear Mr. Louis: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1980, requesting a interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in the Renault Le Car vehicle. You state that the rear seat of the Le Car has 48.2 inches of hip room, and ask whether the vehicle would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency recentl issued to Toyota Motor Company regarding the designated seating capacity of the rear seats in several of its models. The rear-seat designs of these Toyota models are very similar to the Le Car, in that the presence of wheel wells results in hip room measurements below 50 inches under the strict measurement technique specified in the definition of 'designated seating position' (SAE J1100a). As was pointed out in that letter, however, if occupants move their hips slightly forward of the wheel wells, which extend only a few inches out into the seat, there is over 50 inches of usable hip room in these vehicles.; Your letter states that the close proximity of the two inboard portion of the rear seat belt assemblies in the Le Car indicates that only two positions are intended by the manufacturer. The agency would give more credence to this factor if the inboard portions of the belt assemblies were on stiff, immovable cables (or similar design). With the current design, a person wishing to sit in the center position can easily move the belts out of the way, so the belts are not real impediments to use of the center position.; In answer to your ultimate question, the agency must conclude that th rear seat in the Le Car vehicle could qualify as having only two designated seating positions since the hip room is below 50 inches according to the technical measurement procedure specified in the standard. However, we think this is an extremely close case since there is over 48 inches of hip room even between the wheel wells and greater than 50 inches of hip room if the measurement is made mid-way the seat cushion. Therefore, we strongly urge Renault to modify its seat design or to add a third set of belts in this vehicle model. As noted in the letter to Toyota, if manufacturers do not voluntarily comply with the clear intent of the definition of 'designated seating position', the agency may find it necessary to modify the measurement technique that is currently specified.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3236

Dear Mr. Louis: This responds to your letter of March 3, 1980, requesting a interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in the Renault Le Car vehicle. You state that the rear seat of the Le Car has 48.2 inches of hip room, and ask whether the vehicle would qualify as having only two designated seating positions.; I am enclosing a copy of a letter of interpretation the agency recentl issued to Toyota Motor Company regarding the designated seating capacity of the rear seats in several of its models. The rear-seat designs of these Toyota models are very similar to the Le Car, in that the presence of wheel wells results in hip room measurements below 50 inches under the strict measurement technique specified in the definition of 'designated seating position' (SAE J1100a). As was pointed out in that letter, however, if occupants move their hips slightly forward of the wheel wells, which extend only a few inches out into the seat, there is over 50 inches of usable hip room in these vehicles.; Your letter states that the close proximity of the two inboard portion of the rear seat belt assemblies in the Le Car indicates that only two positions are intended by the manufacturer. The agency would give more credence to this factor if the inboard portions of the belt assemblies were on stiff, immovable cables (or similar design). With the current design, a person wishing to sit in the center position can easily move the belts out of the way, so the belts are not real impediments to use of the center position.; In answer to your ultimate question, the agency must conclude that th rear seat in the Le Car vehicle could qualify as having only two designated seating positions since the hip room is below 50 inches according to the technical measurement procedure specified in the standard. However, we think this is an extremely close case since there is over 48 inches of hip room even between the wheel wells and greater than 50 inches of hip room if the measurement is made mid-way the seat cushion. Therefore, we strongly urge Renault to modify its seat design or to add a third set of belts in this vehicle model. As noted in the letter to Toyota, if manufacturers do not voluntarily comply with the clear intent of the definition of 'designated seating position', the agency may find it necessary to modify the measurement technique that is currently specified.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-3.28

DATE: 07/31/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 31 1980

NOA-30

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. Director, Technical Services Questor Juvenile Products Company 771 N. Freedom Street Ravenna, Ohio 44266

Dear Mr. Koziatek:

This responds to the request for interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, made at your May 20, 1980, meeting with members of the agency's staff. At the meeting, you demonstrated a prototype of a Kantwet "One Step" Model 400 child restraint with an automatic movable restraining shield. You asked whether the agency will attach the crotch strap of that child restraint during the 20 mile per hour test specified in S6.1.2.1.2 of the standard for child restraints with movable restraining shields. The answer is yes, the agency will attach the crotch strap during that testing.

The child restraint system you demonstrated to the agency on May 20, 1980, has a movable shield attached by two arms to either side of the child restraint. The movable shield is spring loaded, so that the shield must be mechanically held down in front of the child or the spring will automatically raise the shield above the child's head. In the lower seating surface of the child restraint is a crotch strap that is intended to be manually attached to an anchorage point mounted on the movable shield. If the crotch strap is attached to the movable shield, the shield is held in place in front of the child.

The system is equipped with two upper torso belts that pass through the system's seat back and are attached to an adjustment and anchorage device that is permanently affixed to the movable shield. When the shield is lowered so that it is in front of the child, the two upper torso belts are brought over the shoulders of the child. Thus, with the possible exception of having to adjust the upper torso belts, attaching the crotch strap to the movable shield is the single step necessary to fully restrain a child.

Your specific question was whether the crotch strap used with this child restraint would be considered an integral part of the movable shield. On April 29, 1980, the agency responded to your prior request for interpretation about the crotch strap on the same child restraint with a movable shield that is not spring loaded. The agency said that the crotch strap was not an integral part of the movable shield. The presence of the spring-loaded shield does not change the nature of the crotch strap. It is still a separate device that must be manually connected to the shield every time the child restraint is used. Thus, under our prior interpretation, the crotch strap as used in the design shown us on May 20, 1980, is not an integral part of the shield.

The rationale for the integral belt requirement involves the principal misuse of child restraints which is the failure to attach buckles. This failure is often associated with child restraints having movable surfaces that can be positioned in front of the child. Parents mistakenly assume that such surfaces by themselves would provide sufficient protection and thus do not buckle the harness system in the restraint. To reduce that misuse, the agency established the requirement that belts may be attached during the testing of restraints equipped with movable shields only if they are integral parts of the shield. Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they remain attached to the restraining shield whether or not the restraint is in use and since the need to buckle those belts is more readily apparent than in the case of nonintegral belts. Thus, the integral belts are not subject to the type of misuse described above.

This rationale applies to belts on a child restraint having movable restraining shields that are not spring-loaded. It does not, however, apply to a nonintegral belt on a restraint having a spring-loaded movable restraining shield, if that shield can be held in place only by attaching the nonintegral belt so as to fully and properly restrain the child. The spring-loaded movable restraining shield in your system will not stay in place in front of the child unless the crotch strap is attached. If the crotch strap is not fastened, the movable restraining shield automatically rises above the child's head to signal that the buckle is unfastened and the child is unrestrained. When the movable restraining shield with its integral upper torso belts is positioned in front of the child and the crotch strap is fastened, the child is properly restrained. Requiring the crotch strap to be an integral part of the movable restraining shield is unnecessary in such a system. Our position would be otherwise if the spring-loaded movable restraining shield could be held in place in front of the child without fully and properly restraining the child, such as by only partially attaching nonintegral belts and thus only partially restraining the child.

Further, the agency did not have your type of spring-loaded restraining shield and belt system in mind during the rulemaking proceeding on child restraints. That type of shield and belt system were neither contemplated by the agency nor discussed by any of the comments on the proposal. Accordingly, we plan to issue an interpretive amendment providing that the integral belt requirement does not apply to a nonintegral belt or belts that attach to a spring-loaded movable restraining shield if the shield cannot be held in place in front of the child without the child being fully and properly restrained.

The agency is concerned, however, about the durability of a spring-loaded system such as yours. To properly perform its function the spring must have sufficient force to slowly, but repeatedly, raise the movable shield. Further, since child restraints are traditionally handed down from child to child and family to family, the spring must be able to withstand several years of repeated use. We urge you to design the spring so that it will have sufficient durability to perform satisfactorily over the foreseeable lifetime of the child restraint.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/05/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking several questions about the use of informational readout displays in relation to FMVSS 101-80, Controls and Displays; 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems; and 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

Each of your questions assumes the use of informational readout displays as telltales. The light intensity requirements of Standard No. 101-80 currently prevent informational readout displays from being used as telltales. Section 5.3.3 of the standard requires that informational readout displays must have at least two light intensity values, a relatively high one for daytime use and a relatively low one for nighttime use. The same section requires that the light intensity of telltales shall not be variable. Since it is not possible for an informational readout display to simultaneously meet both requirements, such a display cannot be used as a telltale.

The agency has recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would permit informational readout displays to be used as telltales. We have enclosed a copy of that notice.

I would like to point out the following statement in the NPRM:

Various amendments may be necessary to Standard No. 101-80, as well as to several other safety standards which include requirements for warning indicators, to permit fuller use of informational readout displays. The amendments proposed by this notice are a first step in that direction.

We would welcome any comments that you might have on this matter to assist us in future rulemaking. You may also wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking on any changes that you believe should be made.

The following discussion explains the effect that the proposal would have on your questions.

Question 1

Your first question asks whether the words "Fasten Seat Belts" may be used in an informational readout display instead of the seat belt warning symbol under FMVSS 101-80 and 208. The answer would be yes under the proposal. The NPRM states:

Sections S4.5.3.3(b) and S7.3 of @ 571.208 would be amended to permit the words "Fasten Belts" or "Fasten Seat Belts" as an alternative to the seat belt warning symbol in informational readout displays.

Question 2 Your second question concerns the possibility of allowing cancellation of telltales by voluntary action on the part of the driver. The question asks whether it is permissible to provide a push button that enables drivers to cancel telltales. The answer to this question, which is not dealt with in the NPRM, is no.

While the question is asked separately for the seat belt telltale and telltales not required by any safety standard in the first place, the answer is not dependent on that distinction. Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 101-80 requires that the light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be such that, when activated, that telltale and its identification are visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions. We interpret this section to mean that a telltale cannot be cancellable. If it were cancellable, the telltale would not meet the requirements that it not be variable and that it be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions.

We note that the activation requirements for the seat belt telltale depend on whether it is for a manual belt or automatic belt. For a manual belt, section S7.3 of Standard No. 208 states that the seat belt assembly provided at the driver's seating position must be equipped with a warning system that activates for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds a continuous or flashing light. Thus, while a manufacturer has the discretion to provide an activation time of between 4 and 8 seconds, the telltale still may not be cancellable.

Section S4.5.3.3 requires a different type of warning system for automatic belts. While the audible signal must be activated for a period of not less than 4 seconds and not more than 8 seconds, the visual warning light must be activated for as long as the belt is not fastened.

Question 3

Your third question asks whether it is permissible to use an informational readout display to meet the visual brake warning system requirements of Standard No. 105. The answer would be yes under the proposal.

Section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105 states:

Each indicator lamp shall have a lens labeled in letters not less than 1/8-inch high, which shall be legible to the driver in daylight when lighted. The lens and letters shall have contrasting colors, one of which is red . . . .

It is our interpretation that the illuminated pattern of letters and glazing of an informational readout display would constitute a "lens labeled in letters." This interpretation leaves unanswered other questions about whether a particular informational readout display would meet other requirements of Standard No. 105, such as the color requirement of section S5.3.5.

Question 4

Your fourth question asks whether an informational readout display specifying specific brake problems constitutes separate indicator lamps under the language of Standard No. 105, if a brake warning lamp is present which separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5 of Standard No. 105. The answer is no.

Section S3 of Standard No. 105 specifies various performance requirements for brake system indicator lamps. Under section S3.5, a manufacturer may meet the requirements either by a single common indicator or by separate indicator lamps.

It is our interpretation that if a manufacturer separately meets the requirements of section S3 by a single common indicator lamp, additional indicator lamps that are added voluntarily by the manufacturer are not subject to Standard No. 105's requirements.

Question 5

Your fifth question asks about the requirements for an informational readout display which is a telltale. The NPRM proposes the following language:

S5.3.3.2 Telltales and gauges incorporated into informational readout displays --

(a) Shall have not less than two levels of light intensity, a higher one for day and a lower one for nighttime conditions.

(b) In the case of telltales and gauges not equipped with a variable light intensity control, shall have a light intensity at the higher level provided under paragraph (a) of this section whenever the headlamps are not illuminated.

(c) In the case of telltales and gauges equipped with a variable light intensity control, shall be visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions when the illumination level is set to its lowest level.

The agency does find the system that you are considering developing very interesting. If you do submit a petition for rulemaking, there is one issue that we would appreciate your addressing. Our initial reaction to the idea of permitting drivers to cancel telltales is one of concern, since drivers might either cancel a telltale inadvertently or simply forget that they have done so. An informational readout display which flashed its warnings in sequence might answer those concerns. We would appreciate your addressing the safety consequences of those and any other alternatives that you might be considering.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

March 19, 1981

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: Request for Interpretation Informational Readout Displays

Dear Mr. Berndt

This letter seeks confirmation of interpretations we discussed with Mr. Carson in our meeting with him on December 18, 1980. The questions we have relate to the use of Informational Readout Displays under FMVSS 101, 208, 105.

To better understand our questions, we are enclosing a description of the display system to which our questions apply.

Question 1

This question relates to the use of the words "Fasten Seat Belts" in the case of an informational readout display.

FMVSS 101-80, S5.2.3 permits informational readout displays to use the word or abbreviation shown in Table 2, Column 3 instead of the seat belt warning symbol. Column 3, however, provides no word or abbreviation, but instead refers to FMVSS 208. FMVSS 208, S7.3. only permits the use of words before September 1, 1980.

We believe this was an oversight when identification requirements of FMVSS 101 and 208 were consolidated in 45FR47151. In 43FR27541, it is made clear that NHTSA intends to further the development of readout displays by permitting optional use of symbols or words.

We request comment on our interpretation that the words FASTEN BELTS or FASTEN SEAT BELTS can be used in a readout display instead of a symbol to comply with the visual seat belt-warning requirements of FMVSS 101-80 and 208.

Question 2

This question relates to the activation or deactivation of displays by a voluntary manual action by the driver (pressing a push button control).

a. FMVSS 208, S7.3 requires a visual seat belt warning system that, triggered by the ignition, activates from 4 to 8 seconds. If a multi-message informational readout display is used as the visual seat belt warning (as described in Question 1), would it be permitted to provide a push button that cancels the seat belt warning by a voluntary manual action of the driver in favor of a readout for a malfunction or other warning. Would the above be permitted if a symbol in the readout went on for the duration of the 4 to 8 seconds?

b. FMVSS 101 by itself does not require that the displays listed in Table 2 be provided.

Basically the same question as 2a. applies to the other displays listed in Table 2, for which no requirement for activation in a reference standard exists.

If a multi-message informational readout display is used for any of those displays, would it be permitted to provide a push button that cancels such displays by a voluntary manual action of the driver.

Question 3

This question relates to the use of light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display the word "BRAKE" as required by FMVSS 105.

FMVSS 105, S5.3.5 requires a visual brake warning system using an indicator lamp with a lens labeled in letters. Would it be permissible to use an informational readout display for this purpose, considering the illuminated pattern of letters and its glazing as a "lens labeled in letters?"

Question 4

This question relates to the display of clarifying words in addition to the display "BRAKE."

FMVSS 105, S5.3.5 permits the use of a single brake warning indicator lamp, but requires that if separate indicator lamps are used for the various functions of S5.3.1(a)-(d), then each indicator must be separately and appropriately labeled. However, FMVSS 101-80, S5.2.3 in addition to the required words of Table 2, Column 3, permits the use of clarifying words at the manufacturer's discretion. If a separate, single brake warning indicator lamp, which by itself fulfills the requirements of FMVSS 105, is supplemented by an informational readout specifying the particular brake problem, would the readout be considered clarifying words or separate indicator lamp? The importance of this question is that, in the event of function checking (S5.3.2) or multi-malfunction (S5.3.5), while the BRAKE warning light would illuminate, the readout display could only illuminate one message at a time relative to the S5.3.1(a)-(d) functions.

We request comment on our interpretation that the readout constitutes clarifying words rather than separate indicator lamps because the brake warning lamp separately fulfills the requirements of S5.3.5.

Question 5

This question relates to the light intensity of informational readout displays.

FMVSS 101 S5.3.3.b requires: ". . . light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values . . ." and ". . . The light intensity of each telltale shall not be variable and shall be . . . . visible to the driver under all daytime and nighttime conditions."

What are the requirements for an informational readout display if it displays a message which, by definition of FMVSS 101, S4, qualifies as a telltale?

We would appreciate your giving these questions your earliest possible attention.

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager -- Safety & Emission Control Engineering

Enclosures

DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM

Display fields above speedometer, immediately in front of driver.

(Graphics omitted)

Display I

This display uses light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display words.

It displays the word "BRAKE" whenever required by FMVSS 105. Specific brake information will simultaneously appear on Display II.

Display II

This display uses light emitting diodes or light emitting crystals to display words.

This information readout display (multi-message) informs the driver of malfunctions or provides warnings.

Messages displayed are some of those listed in FMVSS 101-80, Table 2:

- Fasten seat belts

- Fuel level

- Oil pressure

- Coolant temperature

- Electrical charge

and in addition terms such as

- Brake wear

- Headlamp or taillamp

- Fluid levels (engine oil, transmission oil, coolant, washer)

In the event of a multi-malfunction, a computer chooses the message to be displayed on the basis of priority. The symbol to the right of the message field informs the driver of the existence of a multi-malfunction.

Display III

A warning light (lens and bulb) calls for the driver's attention and informs him of the importance of the message by either a blinking (high priority) or steady illumination (low priority).

Selector Control

With this push button control the driver can manually activate or deactivate the message on Display II (multi-message display).

In the case of a double malfunction, the first malfunction is indicated; after pressing the push button, the display indicates the second malfunction.

Example of the sequence of displays which are illuminated in case of a double malfunction: (Graphics omitted)

DRIVER PRESSES THE SELECTOR CONTROL.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: aiam5480

"Dear Dr. Kallieris: This responds to your FAX to Dr. Rolf Eppinger o NHTSA, requesting an interpretation of the requirements specified in Standard No. 212, Windshield Mounting. The answers to your two questions are provided below. Standard No. 212 sets different windshield retention requirements for a vehicle depending on whether it is equipped with passive or manual restraints. S5.1 of the standard provides that vehicles equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 50 percent of the windshield periphery after crash testing. S5.2 of the standard provides that vehicles that are not equipped with passive restraints must retain not less than 75 percent of the windshield periphery. You stated that you have conducted 30 m.p.h. crash tests of motor vehicles with freshly adhered windshields. In the test vehicle, two Hybrid III dummies were placed in the front driver and passenger positions. Each dummy was restrained 'by a three-point belt and air bag.' Your first question asked whether the vehicle is subject to the requirements of S5.1 for 'vehicles equipped with passive restraints,' or S5.2 for 'vehicles not equipped with passive restraints.' The answer to your question depends on whether the restraint system in the tested vehicle meets the definition of 'passive restraint system' set forth in S4 of the standard. That term is defined as: a system meeting the occupant crash protection requirements of S5. of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Section S5 of Standard No. 208 sets occupant protection requirements that must be met in frontal, lateral and rollover crashes. You did not provide much information about the vehicle in question. We assume it is a passenger car. Standard No. 208 (S4.1.4) requires the following of current production passenger cars: (a) At each front outboard designated seating position, each vehicle must meet the standard's frontal crash protection requirements (S5.1) by means that require no action by vehicle occupants (e.g., by means of an air bag or automatic restraints), (b) at the front center designated seating position and at each rear seating position, have a type 1 (lap) or type 2 (lap/shoulder) belt assembly that meet specified requirements, and (c) either meet the lateral and rollover crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 by means that require no action by vehicle occupants, or at each front outboard designated seating position, have a type 1 or type 2 belt assembly that meets the requirements of S5.1 with front test dummies restrained by the type 1 or type 2 assembly in addition to the means that require no action by the vehicle occupant. We assume that the 'three-point belt and air bag' to which you refer were installed in the front outboard seating positions pursuant to these occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. NHTSA's longstanding position is that a vehicle equipped with a type 2 belt assembly and an air bag in those seating positions is equipped with a 'passive restraint system,' and is thus subject to the requirement of S5.1 that 50 percent of the windshield periphery must be retained. (See, e.g., August 18, 1986 letter to Volvo, copy enclosed.) As discussed in the enclosed letter, one of the reasons the agency adopted the 50 percent retention requirement for passive restraint-equipped vehicles was because there could be contact between an air bag system and the windshield, and incidental contact between an air bag-restrained test dummy and the windshield. The Standard No. 208 requirements listed above mean that a vehicle with passive restraints must meet the Standard No. 208 performance critera using only the passive restraints (air bag or automatic seat belt), and using both the passive and manual restraints. This would also be the case for Standard No. 212. The windshield retention would have to be at least 50 percent with the dummies restrained by only the passive restraint, and with the dummies restrained by both the passive and manual restraints. Therefore, your test (which appeared to have been conducted using both the air bag and the type 2 belt assembly) may not have been the worst case situation. Your second question asked whether the windshield displacements described in S5.1 and S5.2 are measured dynamically (i.e., during the crash), or statically (i.e., after the crash). NHTSA determines the portion of the windshield periphery that is retained by the vehicle after the dynamic crash test specified in the standard. I hope this information is helpful. If there are any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Our FAX no. is (202) 366-3820. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel Enclosure";

ID: aiam3135

Dear Mr. Murakami:#This is in response to your letter of September 14 1979, in which you asked about the applicability of the variable intensity illumination requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*, to various components in your company's automobiles. You listed and identified these parts in Figure 1 of your letter which I will refer to in answering your questions.#The variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 are applicable to (1) 'controls, gauges, and their identification,' and to (2) 'any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated.' As noted in section 5 of Safety Standard 101-80, the location, identification, and illumination requirements are applicable only to passenger cars and other vehicles equipped with any control listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1. The term 'gauge' is defined in Section 4 as a 'display that is listed in section 5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale.'#Applying these criteria to the list of automobile components in your letter, I have concluded that none of the listed components, except the ordinary clock and the automatic gear position illumination lamp, are subject to the requirements of Section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80. Since this result resolves the issues raised in Questions Q2.1 - Q2.5 of your letter, I have not addressed them in this response.#The components identified in your diagram by letters a - h (the room lamp, spot lamp, luggage room lamp, personal lamp, radio, foot lamp, step lamp, and the luggage room lamp for hatchback vehicles) are not subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3. This is because they are not controls listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80 and because they do not illuminate the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated. Similarly the glove box lamp and the console box lamp (items i and j) are not subject to section 5.3.3. They are not controls listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and they are not activated when and only when the headlights are activated since their activation requires both opening the box lids and switching on the headlights.#The ignition key illumination lamp (item k), which is not a control listed in Safety Standard 101-80, is activated when the light control switch is turned to the 'small lights only' position (this activates the clearance clamps (sic), identification lamps, and other exterior lamps other than the headlights.) When the switch is turned to the position that activates both, the small lights and the headlights, the key illumination lamp is deactivated. Consequently, the lamp is not activated when and only when the headlights are activated and is, therefore, not subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements.#You noted in conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office that your company uses two types of clocks (item 1 in your letter) in its automobiles. One is an ordinary clock whose face is illuminated when and only when the headlights are activated. The requirements of section 5.3.5 would apply to the illumination of this type of clock.#The other clock used in your company's automobiles is a digital clock with a flourescent (sic) readout which shines with greater intensity during the day and with a lower intensity at night when the headlights are activated. Since this clock is not a control or a display listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and its illumination is not activated when and only when the headlamps are activated, the requirements of section 5.3.3 for continuously variable illumination are not applicable. Section 5.3.3 also provides that light intensity for informational readout systems shall have at least two values. The term 'informational readout systems' which is not defined in Safety Standard 101-80 refers to the term 'informational readout display,' which is defined as 'a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed.' The term 'display' includes only those displays listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard and these listings do not include a digital clock. Therefore, the digital clock would not be subject to the light intensity requirements for informational readout systems.#The automatic gear position illumination lamp (item m in your letter) is subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3. Although it is not a control (see preamble to Safety Standard 101-80, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) this lamp is activated when and only when the headlights are activated.#In Question 2 of your letter, you asked for the definition of the terms 'continuously variable' and 'variable.' The term 'continuously variable' is defined in section 5.3.3(a) and (b) of Safety Standard 101-80. It is followed by a description of the two light intensities which must be provided for informational readout systems. The term 'variable' appears in the next sentence in section 5.3.3 which states that:#>>>'The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated *shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph*. (sic)<<<#The underlined words in the quoted sentence refer to the definition of 'continuously variable' except in the case of informational readout displays where the words refer to illumination of two intensities.#If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer them.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;

ID: aiam3136

Dear Mr. Murakami:#This is in response to your letter of September 14 1979, in which you asked about the applicability of the variable intensity illumination requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, *Controls and Displays*, to various components in your company's automobiles. You listed and identified these parts in Figure 1 of your letter which I will refer to in answering your questions.#The variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 are applicable to (1) 'controls, gauges, and their identification,' and to (2) 'any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated.' As noted in section 5 of Safety Standard 101-80, the location, identification, and illumination requirements are applicable only to passenger cars and other vehicles equipped with any control listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1. The term 'gauge' is defined in Section 4 as a 'display that is listed in section 5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale.'#Applying these criteria to the list of automobile components in your letter, I have concluded that none of the listed components, except the ordinary clock and the automatic gear position illumination lamp, are subject to the requirements of Section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80. Since this result resolves the issues raised in Questions Q2.1 - Q2.5 of your letter, I have not addressed them in this response.#The components identified in your diagram by letters a - h (the room lamp, spot lamp, luggage room lamp, personal lamp, radio, foot lamp, step lamp, and the luggage room lamp for hatchback vehicles) are not subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3. This is because they are not controls listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80 and because they do not illuminate the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated. Similarly the glove box lamp and the console box lamp (items i and j) are not subject to section 5.3.3. They are not controls listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and they are not activated when and only when the headlights are activated since their activation requires both opening the box lids and switching on the headlights.#The ignition key illumination lamp (item k), which is not a control listed in Safety Standard 101-80, is activated when the light control switch is turned to the 'small lights only' position (this activates the clearance clamps (sic), identification lamps, and other exterior lamps other than the headlights.) When the switch is turned to the position that activates both, the small lights and the headlights, the key illumination lamp is deactivated. Consequently, the lamp is not activated when and only when the headlights are activated and is, therefore, not subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements.#You noted in conversation with Ms. Debra Weiner of my office that your company uses two types of clocks (item 1 in your letter) in its automobiles. One is an ordinary clock whose face is illuminated when and only when the headlights are activated. The requirements of section 5.3.5 would apply to the illumination of this type of clock.#The other clock used in your company's automobiles is a digital clock with a flourescent (sic) readout which shines with greater intensity during the day and with a lower intensity at night when the headlights are activated. Since this clock is not a control or a display listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and its illumination is not activated when and only when the headlamps are activated, the requirements of section 5.3.3 for continuously variable illumination are not applicable. Section 5.3.3 also provides that light intensity for informational readout systems shall have at least two values. The term 'informational readout systems' which is not defined in Safety Standard 101-80 refers to the term 'informational readout display,' which is defined as 'a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed.' The term 'display' includes only those displays listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard and these listings do not include a digital clock. Therefore, the digital clock would not be subject to the light intensity requirements for informational readout systems.#The automatic gear position illumination lamp (item m in your letter) is subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3. Although it is not a control (see preamble to Safety Standard 101-80, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) this lamp is activated when and only when the headlights are activated.#In Question 2 of your letter, you asked for the definition of the terms 'continuously variable' and 'variable.' The term 'continuously variable' is defined in section 5.3.3(a) and (b) of Safety Standard 101-80. It is followed by a description of the two light intensities which must be provided for informational readout systems. The term 'variable' appears in the next sentence in section 5.3.3 which states that:#>>>'The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated *shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph*. (sic)<<<#The underlined words in the quoted sentence refer to the definition of 'continuously variable' except in the case of informational readout displays where the words refer to illumination of two intensities.#If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer them.#Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel;