ID: nht87-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/23/87

FROM: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOCIATION INC

TO: STEVE KRANTZKE -- NHTSA/

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DOUG COLE; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 302; LETTER DATED 06/29/87 FROM JONATHAN JACKSON TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/08/87 FROM ROSE TAL ISMAN TO DOUG COLE

TEXT: Hi Steve!

It was a pleasure talking with you and thanks again for a speedy returned call. George Shiflett recommended I contact your office about an issue that has arisen from a Certification program that National Van Conversion Association (NVCA) sponsors. The i ssue surrounds the question of "compliance with FMVSS #302".

A part of NVCA's Certification includes the physical gathering of random samples of fabrics, foams, carpets, and other flammable items that van conversion firms use in vehicles. These samples are then channeled to an accredited testing firm for destruct ive testing to verify compliance with FMVSS #302. NVCA has found many samples, according to the tests performed, not to be in compliance with FMVSS #302. The manufacturers of these samples vehemently oppose NVCA's findings and insist that their samples are indeed in compliance with FMVSS #302.

In an effort to double check NVCA's test procedures, I contacted four major testing laboratories recommended by the American Association of Motor Vehicles Administrators. Half of those contacted suggested that NVCA's test methods were correct and the ot her half disagreed. Each half was quite certain they were right. The issue appears to be about when to use (or not to use) support wires in conjunction with the FMVSS #302 test. NVCA doesn't use any support wires in its test; some fabric manufacturers use support wires in their tests. In many (not all) instances, these support wires are an influence on whether a material passes or fails the FMVSS #302 test. Will you please clarify for us whether to use or not to use the support wires?

I have enclosed copies of test procedures from NVCA's testing lab, a fabric manufacturer, Ford, and Fisher Body Division of GM for your review. Also enclosed is a copy of a letter NVCA will include with its communications with conversion firms (in the c ase of a FMVSS #302 failure, per NVCA's current test methods). If you see anything that we need to alter immediately, please contact me; if not, I realize your interpretations, comments, opinions, rulings, or whatever may take some time to formulate and NVCA will proceed as normal until we hear from you. Your assistance in this matter will be greatly appreciated by many involved. If I can provide any additional data or be of service in any way, please call on me.

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht87-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/87

FROM: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 205

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DIETMAR K HAENCHEN; REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The design of passenger cars has changed in recent years to reduce aerodynamic drag and increase fuel efficiency. Volkswagen is planning to improve interior comfort and reduce energy consumption in future car models by introducing selected areas with re duced energy transmission via ceramic dots on the car's glazing. The reduced energy radiation into the interior increases driver's and passenger's comfort and results in increased active safety. We believe that the application of shaded areas on the wi ndows complies with the applicable safety standards. Different methods exist for shading those areas; the glass may be tinted like shade bands applied to windshields, or small ceramic dots can be applied on the glass surface having the same effect on th e reduction of energy transmission. The sections of glass selected for the application of the ceramic paint could, if not for styling aesthetics, be covered with sheet metal in order to avoid questions of interpretation of FMVSS 205. However, the styli ng incentive is compelling and driver visibility with the proposed configuration is better than total blockage with sheet metal, which would clearly be allowable. We are, therefore, seeking the agency's opinion of this concept which we are considering fo r the next new model line. While the agency does not give advance approval of specific product designs, the agency's opinion of whether the configuration proposed herein appears to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will a id manufacturers in determining whether the numerous variations of the concept applied to various vehicles will comply with the standards.

Volkswagen has reviewed Standard 205 which in turn refers to ANS z26.1 (1980) which establishes requirements for safety glazing material for use in passenger cars. In Section 4.2 of ANS z26.1, specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which VW intends to apply to the windshield and side/rear glass respectively refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "leve ls required for driving visibility".

The term "levels requisite for driving visibility" has been used by the agency in interpretations and on several occasions has been addressed more precisely such as the interpretation to Mr. G. Nield on 15 February, 1974 as follows: "We (the agency) cons ider the word 'levels' in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to driver's eyes." To our knowledge the agency has not gone beyond the above interpretation in further defining "levels requisite for driving visibility".

In order to comply with FMVSS 205 Volkswagen deems it appropriate to use engineering judgement, applicable standards and technical recommendations to define these "levels" so that driving visibility is properly maintained with the installation of glazing material having areas within a single sheet of less than 70% light transmittance.

Footnote 1 of ANS z26.1 - 1980, although not expressively stated, refers mainly to shade bands and has been so construed and treated by the industry. The automobile industry so far has determined which areas are "requisite for driving visibility" and ha s marked the shaded areas as required. In these cases the industry determined how far shade bands can extend donward from the upper edge of the window and still be in compliance with FMVSS 205.

SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands) also refers to ANS z26.1 when defining "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by USAS z26.1". The SAE recommends shade bands above the 95th eyellipse only, but acknowledged at that time that substantial research to establish the driver's field of view did not exist. Volkswagen also believes that these data do not exist currently.

Guidelines for a determination of "levels" which extend upward from the bottom edge of the vehicle glazing are addressed in Directive 77/649 as amended in 81/643 of the European Economic Community (EEC). The directive specifies levels requisite for driv ing visibility in the driver's 180 degrees forward direct field of vision. Section 5.1.3 specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision by a horizontal plane through V[1] (upper boundary) and by three planes at downward angles of 4 degrees through V[2] (lower boundary). The latter describes the minimum field of view for small persons through the lower portion of the glazing.

The EEC in its effort to set angular limits for the driver's forward direct field of vision used anthropometric data of horizontal head and eye movement to arrive at the 180 degrees limit. The SAE in its information report J985 arrives at the same figur e when the angles of "maximum head movement (is) 60 degrees left and 60 degrees right" and "the eyes can turn 30 degrees to the right in one rapid, smooth movement", are combined.

For the rear visibility in the U.S., the "levels requisite for driving visibility" are not specified if a passenger side rearview mirror is used according to FMVSS 111. Technically, the complete rear glazing can be blocked by a vehicle manufacturer if a passenger side rearview mirror is installed as standard equipment. Volkswagen intends to install a passenger side outside mirror as standard equipment in conjunction with the subject shading configuration and also to provide an area in the rear glazing with transmissability of greater than 70%.

With this background, Volkswagen is planning to include either tinted bands or ceramic dots on glazing as described in Attachments I and II. Volkswagen believes that this concept clearly allows light transmittance in excess of 70% in the areas requisite for driving visibility and consequently should adequately satisfy the safety needs for overall driving visibility.

Volkswagen has tested these boundaries according to the specifications of 77/649/EEC and concluded that ceramic dots in the area defined in 5.1.3 very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small driver's eyes, which are "requisite for drivi ng visibility". In addition we have designated the area adjacent to the right and left hand outside mirrors as requisite for driving visibility.

This proposal has been approved by the German government (KBA) as recommended by the Technical Service Hannover. This approval was based on the fact that it complies with the driver's direct field of view (forward 180 degrees) and that unobstructed outs ide rearview mirrors are used on both sides to supplement the inside rearview mirror for the driver's indirect field of view. This approval is based on compliance with the applicable EEC Directive and therefore will likely be acceptable to all Common Ma rket countries.

Volkswagen requests the agency's opinion of this proposal and an interpretation of whether the markings described in Section 6 of ANS z26.1 would be required to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with the 70% transmittance requirement . If required, Section 6 states that the glazing "shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test No. 2" (70% transmissability). Interpretation is requested of where these markings should be placed for the configurations shown in Attachments I and II if they are required. Since this is under consideration for the next model year, a timely response is requested.

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT I

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% and 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% , 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ATTACHMENT II

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ID: nht87-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 25, 1987

FROM: MARY F. BARRAS -- SALES ASSISTANT, CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION, M.A.N. TRUCK & BUS

TO: MICHAEL W. VORIS -- BUS PROCUREMENT SUPERVISOR, METRO

TITLE: CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-83 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-23-88, TO JAY COSTA, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STD 271, REDBOOK A31; MEMO DATED 6-18-87, CONTRACT NO. T/F 19-84 REAR EMERGENCY WINDOW; MEMO DATED 7-21-87, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM JAY COSTA

TEXT: Further to my letter of June 18, 1987 pertaining to the subject matter, this letter is to serve as clarification in regard to our position, the manufacturer, of the subject contract trolley buses.

* The trolley bus, as manufactured and delivered to Metro Seattle, more than exceeds the standards set forth by FMVSS 217.

* Paragraph S5.2.1 of the information previously submitted, states that at least one (1) rear exit shall be provided unless the bus configuration precludes the installation of an accessible rear exit. The trolley bus design of the subject, contract d oes not preclude the installation of an accessible rear exit; therefore, because of this requirement and our interpretation of FMVSS 217, a rear exit is provided.

Considering the above, M. A. N. Truck & Bus Corporation recommends that the rear window, as delivered to Seattle Metro, should remain as designed.

ID: nht87-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Bill Schuette

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

The Honorable Bill Schuette U.S. House of Representatives P.O. BOX 631 Midland, MI 48640

Dear Mr. Schuette:

Thank you for your June 4, 1987, letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Dale Lighthill of Owosso. Mr. Lighthill owns a semi-trailer which he has converted into a travel home. He wishes to know whether there is any law which prohibits him from carrying persons in his travel trailer.

Our agency is responsible for promulgating safety standards for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles. We have no jurisdiction over the use of motor vehicles and thus have no regulation prohibiting Mr. Lighthill from carrying people in his trave l home trailer. However, many states have enacted provisions in their vehicle codes for occupying moving trailers. Some states prohibit persons from occupying a moving trailer or operating a motor vehicle which is towing an occupied trailer, and some per mit occupying a moving trailer only under certain circumstances. I am certain that the officials of the states your constituent plans to visit will be happy to provide information on their laws for transporting persons in moving trailers. In addition, Mr . Lighthill night find it helpful to contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) for general information on state requirements. The AAMVA may be reached at: Suite 910, 1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20036. T elephone: (202) 296-1955.

Thank you for contacting our office. Please contact me if you or your constituent have any questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Erika Jones Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, SW Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Erika:

I am writing with a request from my constituent, Dale Lighthill, of Owosso, Michigan. Mr. Lighthill owns a semi-trailer which has been converted into a travel home. He would like to know if there are any laws prohibiting carrying someone in the trailer s ection of this travel home anywhere in the continental U.S.

I would appreciate it if you could research this question and advise me at my Midland District Office of your findings. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Bill Schuette Member of Congress

ID: nht87-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hisashi Tsujishita Chief Co-ordinator Technical Administration Department 1. Diahatsu-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 question concerning Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. A response to your question concerning Standard No. 219 was sent to you earlier, and we expect to respond to your question concerning Standard No. 201 shortly.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 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 safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You asked whether Standard No. 101's illumination requirements apply to controls and displays not otherwise regulated by the standard. You quoted section S5.3.3's requirements for the light intensities of informational readout systems and asked whether t hose requirements apply to the following such items: digital clock using liquid crystals; radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals; and miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio c ontrol switches, etc., which are lighted only when the headlights or parking lights are activated.

I would like to note that Standard No. 101's requirements for light intensities were amended in a final rule published in the Federal Register (52 FR 3244) on February 3, 1987. An effective date of March 5, 1987, was adopted for most of the amendments. S ubsequently, in response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA amended 49 CFR Part 511 to permit compliance with either the earlier version of the standard, reissued as Standard No. 100, or the amended standard until September 1, 1989. 52 FR 7150, Marc h 9, 1987. I have enclosed copies of those notices for your convenience.

In answering your question, I will separately discuss the requirements for vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, and vehicles manufactured before that date.

Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989

Vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, must meet the requirements of the current version of Standard No. 101. Section S5.3.5 provides:

S5.3.5 Any source of illumination within the driver's forward field of view which is not used for the controls and displays regulated by this standard, and which is capable of being illuminated while the vehicle is in motion, must have either a variable intensity, a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions, or a means of being turned off. This requirement shall not apply to buses that are normally operated with the passenger compartment i lluminated.

As noted in your letter, the items you listed are not among the controls and displays generally regulated by Standard No. 101. However, if sources of illumination for those items are within the driver's forward field of view and are capable of being illu minated while the vehicle is in motion, they must meet the requirements of section S5.3.5.

Vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989

Standard No. 100, i.e., the earlier version of Standard No. 101, applies only to vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989. The application sections of Standards Nos. 100 and 101 make it clear that manufacturers have the option of meeting the requir ements of either standard for any control, display or illumination until September 1, 1989. Also, the application section of Standard No. 101 provides that if no requirements are specified in Standard No. 100 for a control, display, or illumination, none need be met as a result of Standard No. 101 for motor vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989.

Section S5.3.3 of Standard No. 100 provides:

Light intensities for controls, gauges, and their identification shall be continuously variable from: (a) A position at which either there is no light emitted or the light is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditio ns to (b) a position providing illumination sufficient for the driver to identify the control or display readily under conditions of reduced visibility. Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for nighttime conditions. 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. (Emphasis added.) In considering manufacturer options under Standards No. 100 and 101, for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989, the following points should be noted:

(1) Some illuminations covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are not covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a control located in the rear seating area that is illuminated only when the headlights are activated. Sin ce a manufacturer may meet the requirements of either Standard No. 100 or Standard No. 101 for any illumination and no requirement is specified for such illuminations in Standard No. 101, no requirement need be met for such illuminations.

(2) Some illuminations not covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. An example is a clock, located in the driver's forward field of view, which is always illuminated as a result of utilizi ng light emitting diodes. No requirement need be met for such illuminations (for vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1989).

(3) Some illuminations covered by the highlighted language of Standard No. 100 are also covered by section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101. For these illuminations, the requirements of section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 are more flexible. While the highlighte d language of Standard No. 100 provides that such illuminations must, depending on the illumination, be either continuously variable or have at least two values, one for day and one for night, section S5.3.5 of Standard No. 101 provides three options for all such illuminations. Such illuminations must have either a variable intensity, i.e., at least two levels of intensity; a single intensity that is barely discernible to a driver who has adapted to dark ambient roadway conditions; or a means of being t urned off.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

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 (1)

FMVSS No. 101 ; Controls and Displays

Paragraph S5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 101 provides that;

"Light intensities for informational readout systems shall have at least two values, a higher one for day, and a lower one for night time conditions. The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the h eadlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph."

However the applicable items(illuminations) of the above provision are not necessarily definitely for us.

We believe that these provisions are applied only to the illuminations for the controls or gauges which are somehow regulated otherwise in FMVSS No. 101, and are not applied to the illuminations which are optionally equipped and are not otherwise mention ed in the standard, such as following illuminations in concrete;

(1) Digital clock using liquid crystals (2) Radio employed digital frequency indicator using liquid crystals

(3) Miscellaneous illuminations for conventional analog clock, cigar lighter, ashtray, and radio control switches, etc. which are lightened only when the headlights (parking lights) are activated.

We would like to confirm that the above items are not applied the variable illumination requirements. Please advise us in detail in this matter.

QUESTIONNAIRE (2)

FMVSS Ho. 201 ; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Paragraph S3.5.1(c) of FMVSS No. 201 provides the dimensional requirements for armrests as follows;

"Along not less than 2 continuous inches of its length, the armrest shall, when measured vertically inside elevation, provide at least 2 inches of coverage with the pelvic impact area."

Our concern, however, centers on how to measure the armrest vertically in side elevation.

We believe that this provision does not necessarily require completely plain area of 2 in. x 2 in. on the armrests such as Ill.1 below, and that the armrests which have, to some extent, rounded inside surface, such as Ill.2, shall be deemed in compliance with this provision.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

And we also believe that no matter how the armrests have more than 2 in. side elevation considerably sharply projected armrests such as Ill.3 shall be deemed in noncompliance with the provision.

However, we can not be sure the criteria for distinguish Ill.2 from Ill.3. Though we think the most important point to be concerned is its contactability by the occupant , we can not necessary surely know the procedures to prove the contactability.

Therefore we would like to ask your kind favor of showing us ' the guideline to how to measure armrests to decide the compliancy to S3.5.1(c).

And further, as we are designing a little more complicated shape such as shown on the next page, we wish you would advise us about the compliancy of the armrest.

SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION

FMVSS No. 219 ; Windshield Zone Intrusion

Paragraph S5 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 windshield 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 veh icle is deemed in compliance 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 ILLUSTRATION

ID: nht87-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JUNE 29, 1987

FROM: MARTIN V. CHAUVIN -- CHIEF CARRIER SAFETY BUREAU, STATE OF NEW YORK

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-11-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES - NHTSA, TO MARTIN CHAUVIN

TEXT: The New York State Department of Transportation is reviewing a proposal to add a requirement for the driver's seat on school buses.

The proposal being reviewed recommends that all driver's seats on school buses be equipped with a pelvic and upper torso restraint or what is referred to as a "Type 2 Seat Belt Assembly." One of the school bus manufacturing companies has indicated that t he upper torso restraint or shoulder harness cannot be provided as it would violate the requirements for head impact protection as contained in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. As part of our overall review, we ask that this statement be addr essed by your agency.

In reports issued by organizations such as the National Transportation Safety Board, it is indicated that the Type 2 Seat Belt Assembly is far superior to the Type 1 Seat Belt Assembly in passenger car use. It is reasonable to make the assumption that t his superiority would apply equally well to school bus driver seats as well. In considering the vital role the school bus driver is expected to play in the event of an accident, it is extremely important that we provide the best protection available.

We are currently in the process of developing the legislative proposals to amend our laws and would greatly appreciate a timely response to this request. If there is any need to further discuss this request, the undersigned can be reached at (518) 457-1 010.

Thank you.

ID: nht87-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/87

FROM: JONATHAN JACKSON -- COMMERCIAL TESTING CO

TO: DOUG COLE -- NATIONAL VAN CONVERSION ASSOCIATION, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DOUG COLE; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 302; LETTER DATED 06/22/87 FROM ROSE M TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/08/87 FROM ROSE TALISMAN TO DOUG COLE; LETTER DATED 06/23/87 FROM DOUG COLE T O STEVE KRANTZICE

TEXT: Dear Sir:

When we receive a request for the MVSS 302 test, we use the methodology printed in the Federal Register, Vol. 36, No. 5 - January 8, 1971. It is entitled Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302. The test apparatus is a commercially available Horizonta l Burning Cabinet which we purchased from Custom Scientific Instruments. The burner is fueled with natural gas.

Recently, we did a test for you on a fabric. You questioned the use or non-use of wire supports on this type sample. Paragraph S5.1.3 of the Standard states that a "...specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning ..." may be supported with wires. The fabric that we tested for you does not fall into that category. It is supported by the tension of the U-frame and does not distort when it burns. The use of wire supports on this type material may give mis-leading results as the wires act as a heat sink.

Our further interpretation of the Standard (paragraph S5.3 (a)), is that a material which is intended for use in a size less than can be supported by the U-frame, the use of wire supports is acceptable. Further reference is made of paragraph S5.2.1 w hich states that the "...maximum available length or width of a specimen is used where either dimension is less than 14 inches or 4 inches respectively."

Our interpretation of the Standard as noted above does not allow use of wire supports on this type material unless the fabric were intended for use in maximum widths of 4 inches.

If you have any questions, please call me.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 36 NO 5, JANUARY 8, 1971 [OMITTED]

MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 302 FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR MATERIALS

PASSENGER CARS, MULTIPURPOSE PASSENGER VEHICLES, TRUCKS, AND BUSES

TEST METHOD

MATERIAL DEVELOPMENT & TESTING LABORATORY

FISHER BODY DIVISION

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

FLAMMABILITY OF INTERIOR TRIM MATERIALS

I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

THIS PROCEDURE IS USED TO DETERMINE THE BURNING RATES OF MATERIALS USED IN THE OCCUPANT COMPARTMENTS OF AUTOMOBILES.

II. EQUIPMENT AND/OR MATERIAL REQUIRED

A. THE TEST IS CONDUCTED IN A METAL CABINET TO PROTECT THE TEST SPECIMENS FROM DRAFTS. THE INTERIOR OF THE METAL CABINET IS 381 MM LONG, 203 MM DEEP AND 355 MM HIGH. IT HAS A GLASS OBSERVATION WINDOW IN THE FRONT AND A CLOSABLE OPENING TO PERMIT IN SERTION OF THE ALUMINUM[Illegible Word] SPECIMEN HOLDER. FOR VENTILATION, IT HAS A 13 MM CLEARANCE SPACE AROUND THE TOP OF THE CABINET, TEN 19 MM DIAMETER HOLES IN THE BASE OF THE CABINET AND LEGS TO ELEVATE THE BOTTOM OF THE CABINET BY 10 MM.

1. THE TEST SPECIMEN IS INSERTED BETWEEN TWO MATCHING U-SHAPED FRAMES OF ALUMINUM STOCK 25 MM WIDE AND 10 MM HIGH. THE INTERIOR DIMENSION OF THE U-SHAPED FRAMES ARE 51 MM WIDE BY 330 MM LONG. ALL SPECIMENS ARE KEPT HORIZONTAL WITH HEAT RESISTANT .2 5 MM CHROMEL WIRE SPANNING THE WIDTH OF THE U-SHAPED FRAME UNDER THE SPECIMEN AT 25 MM INTERVALS.

2. AN ALUMINUM STAND IS USED TO SUPPORT THE U-SHAPED FRAME WHICH LOCATES THE TEST SPECIMEN IN THE CENTER OF THE CABINET.

3. A BUNSEN BURNER WITH A TUBE OF 10 MM INSIDE DIAMETER IS USED. THE GAS ADJUSTING VALVE IS SET TO PROVIDE A FLAME WITH THE TUBE VERTICAL OF 38 MM IN HEIGHT. THE AIR INLET TO THE BURNER IS CLOSED.

NOTE: SEE FISHER DRAWING NO. EQ 199 FOR DETAILS REGARDING ALL ABOVE EQUIPMENT.

B. A CONTROLLED TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY CHAMBER OR EQUIVALENT.

C. CLICKER DIE 100 MM X 355 MM FOR CUTTING TEST SPECIMENS.

FLAMABILITY TEST VARIABLES THAT AFFECT THE BURN RATE WHEN PERFORMING FISHER BODY TM 32-12

1. ALWAYS CLEAN THE U-SHAPED FRAMES BEFORE STARTING EACH BURN TEST (RESIDUE OILS, CARBON, ETC., FORM ON THE U-SHAPED FRAME AFTER EACH TEST)

2. MAKE SURE THE .25 MM CHROMEL WIRES ARE PERFECTLY STRAIGHT (HORIZONTAL). SAGGING WIRES WOULD ALLOW CERTAIN TEST SPECIMENS TO SAG.

3. MAKE SURE THE DOOR ALWAYS FITS FLUSH TO THE TEST CABINET. (FROM TIME TO TIME, HEAT CAUSES THE DOOR NOT TO FIT SMUGLY CAUSING OR ALLOWING A DRAFT).

4. ALWAYS EXCHANGE THE AIR INSIDE THE TEST CABINET WITH FRESH AIR. (AFTER EACH TEST SMOKE WILL STAY INSIDE THE CABINET UNLESS BLOWN OUT). FISHER BODY USES AN AIR JET TO EXCHANGE AIR.

5. KEEP THE FLAMMABILITY TEST CABINET AS NEAR ROOM TEMPERATURE AS POSSIBLE BEFORE STARTING EACH TEST. (SPARE CABINET LIDS, SPARE U-SHAPED FRAMES COMPRESSED AIR ARE USEFUL OPTIONAL ITEMS).

6. LEAD FLAME (FLAME THAT FLASHES FORWARD OF THE MAIN BURNING AREA) USUALLY OCCURS ON VINYL COATED FABRICS AND MUST BE OBSERVED VERY CAREFULLY BY THE OPERATOR.

7. CORRELATION DIFFICULTY - IF PERFORMING DUPLICATE TESTS, ALWAYS CUT SPECIMENS IN THE SAME AREA CONSIDERING THICKNESS, WIDTH, RIBS IF PLASTIC PARTS, ETC.

8. FLAT BLACK INTERIOR CABINET FINISH - A SHINY INTERIOR TENDS TO RADIATE (REFLECT) HEAT INSIDE THE CABINET; ALSO, CAUSES A CLEANING PROBLEM AFTER EACH TEST.

9. VENTILATION HOLES - KEEP OPEN. BURNING MATERIALS AND BLOWN MATERIALS WILL COVER THESE HOLES AND WILL PREVENT AIR CIRCULATION WITHIN THE CABINET.

10. SPECIMEN IDENTIFICATION - BE CAREFUL WHEN MARKING SPECIMENS FOR IDENTIFICATION SINCE ENAMELS, INKS, ETC, COULD AFFECT YOUR TEST RESULTS.

THE SPECIMEN IS PRODUCED BY CUTTING THE MATERIAL IN THE DIRECTION THAT PROVIDED THE MOST ADVERSE TEST RESULTS. THE SPECIMEN IS ORIENTED SO THAT THE SURFACE CLOSEST TO THE OCCUPANT COMPARTMENT AIR SPACE FACES DOWNWARD ON THE FRAME.

MATERIAL WITH A NAPPED OR TUFTED SURFACE IS PLACED ON A FLAT SURFACE AND COMBED TWICE AGAINST THE NAP WITH A COMB HAVING SEVEN TO EIGHT SMOOTH ROUNDED TEETH PER 25 MM.

PRIOR TO TESTING, EACH SPECIMEN IS CONDITIONED FOR 24 HOURS AT A TEMPERATURE OF 21 DEGREES C + 1.5 DEGREES C AND A RELATIVE HUMIDITY OF -0.0

50% + 0.0. TO FACILITATE HANDLING, SEVERAL PIECES MAY BE TAKEN - 5%

FROM THE HUMIDITY CHAMBER AND PLACED IN A POLYETHYLENE BAG TO RETAIN MOISTURE UNTIL THEY ARE TO BE BURNED.

V. TEST PROCEDURE

A. MOUNT THE SPECIMEN SO THAT BOTH SIDES AND ONE END ARE HELD BY THE U-SHAPED FRAME AND ONE END IS EVEN WITH THE OPEN END OF THE FRAME. WHERE THE MAXIMUM AVAILABLE WIDTH OF A SPECIMEN CANNOT BE HELD IN THE U-SHAPED FRAME, PLACE THE SPECIMEN IN POSIT ION ON WIRE SUPPORTS AS DESCRIBED IN 11A.1., WITH ONE END HELD BY THE CLOSED END OF THE U-SHAPED FRAME. SPECIMENS SHORTER THAN 355 MM MAY BE POSITIONED ON THE WIRE SUPPORTS AND ALIGNED WITH THE OPEN END OF THE FRAME FOR IGNITION PURPOSES.

B. PLACE THE MOUNTED SPECIMEN IN A HORIZONTAL POSITION IN THE CENTER OF THE CABINET.

C. WITH THE FLAME ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO II A.3, POSITION THE BUNSEN BURNER AND SPECIMEN SO THAT THE CENTER OF THE BURNER TIP IS 19 MM BELOW THE CENTER OF THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE OPEN END OF THE SPECIMEN.

D. EXPOSE THE SPECIMEN TO THE FLAME FOR 15 SECONDS.

E. BEGIN TIMING (WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE PERIOD OF APPLICATION OF THE BURNER FLAME) WHEN THE FLAME FROM THE BURNING SPECIMEN REACHES A POINT 38 MM FROM THE OPEN END OF THE SPECIMEN.

F. MEASURE THE TIME THAT IT TAKES THE FLAME TO PROGRESS TO A POINT 38 MM FROM THE CLAMPED END OF THE SPECIMEN. IF THE FLAME DOES NOT REACH THE SPECIFIED END POINT, TIME ITS PROGRESS TO THE POINT WHERE FLAMING STOPS.

ID: nht87-2.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/29/87

FROM: SIDNEY A. GARRETT -- PRESIDENT BROWN CARGO VAN INC

TO: TAYLOR VINSON, LEGAL COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/28/87 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO SIDNEY A. GARRETT, REDBOOK A31, STANDARD 102, STANDARD 108, TRUCK SIDE MARKETS

TEXT: Dear Mr. Vinson,

We are manufacturers of truck van bodies and would like to have an interpretation of the regulations regarding the placement of intermediate lamps and reflectors. We are currently installing lights on our upper rail and reflectors just above the lowe r rail as indicated on the attached drawings.

We are of the opinion that we are installing lights and reflectors on the front part of each side that are unnecessary under current federal regulations.

Would you please send us your interpretation of these regulations for our files. Additionally, could you indicate whether compliance with federal regulations constitutes compliance with the various states' regulations since our van bodies are sold ac ross the country.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

(DRAWING OMITTED)

ID: nht87-2.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/30/87

FROM: CHRISTINE COTTLE -- OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR, CLASSIC AUTO ACCESSORIES

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COURIER, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 10-15-87, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO CHRISTINE COTTLE, VSA 102(4), VSA 108 (A)(2)(A)

TEXT: We are interested in obtaining information regarding any federal regulations that may apply to or restrict the use of items which might be suspended from the centered rear view mirror in an automobile or truck.

Specifically we are anxious to avoid liability for any obstruction of vision which might occur as the result of the use of such items. I refer to such decorations as hanging dice, air fresheners, etc.

Any information you can give me would be most appreciated.

ID: nht87-2.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/09/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Wil de Groot -- President, Exoticars of Hunterdon

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 2/24/87 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Wil de Groot

TEXT:

Mr. Wil de Groot President Exoticars of Hunterdon 6 Washington Street Frenchtown, NJ 08825

This is in reply to your letter of April 12, 1987, with respect to your further questions on Federal regulation of kit cars.

You have presented the following facts: the engine, transmission, final drive, axles, suspension, steering, brakes, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harness, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switch buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks, impact absorbing bumper supports, and other unnamed components, all previously used on a vehicle meeting Federal safety standards would be retained for use with a new body of your own manufacture.

Your first choice is to install these items upon a new chassis of your own manufacture, and to supply the vehicle to a purchaser fully assembled. This is what must be met under these circumstances: when a new body is mounted upon a new chassis, the resul ting vehicle must comply with all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable upon the date of its assembly, even if the parts that you named are used. Further, the assembler must certify that the vehicle complies with safety standards. There is no legal obligation to use new parts in order to certify compliance with the standards. The assembler is regarded as a manufacturer of motor vehicles, and must notify owners and remedy noncompliances with the safety standards or safety related defects shou ld they occur, in accordance with Federal law and regulations.

If you supply all parts, but do not complete assembly of the vehicle, we should regard you nevertheless as its manufacturer and subject to the requirements stated above. However, if you do not supply all parts, the question of whether you would be regard ed as the manufacturer would necessarily depend upon the parts that the purchaser must supply in order to compete assembly.

You have also stated your second choice: that the new body would be mounted upon the original chassis, modified to accept it. In this circumstance, when a new body is mounted upon a used chassis, the resulting vehicle is not subject to Federal motor vehi cle standards that apply to new vehicles, and there is no certification obligation. Nevertheless, its assembler is a "manufacturer" under federal law and responsible for notification of owners and remedy of any safety related defects that may occur in th e product. Further, if the assembler is the person responsible for removing the old body, he must ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet the standards that originally applied to the vehicle which might have been affected by removal of the old body. For example, if the body of a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 is removed, compliance with a number of standards such as those covering glazing, lighting, and windshield retention is affected and the reassembled vehicle must then meet the standards that were in effect in 1974. But, standards covering such things as accelerator control systems and brake hoses would not appear to be affected by the disassembly of the original vehicle, and the assembler is under no obligation to ensure that the reassembled vehicle continues to meet those standards.

If the used-chassis vehicle is supplied partially disassembled, but all parts are supplied, we would nevertheless regard the supplier as subject to all obligations discussed above, assuming that he was the person responsible for removal of the old body. If all parts are not supplied, the answer remains as before: whether the supplier is a "manufacturer" depends upon the parts that the purchase must provide.

Finally, you have asked, "if actual crash tests. . .have to be made what is the cost and where is this done?" There is no express legal requirement that a manufacturer of new motor vehicles conduct crash tests in order to certify compliance with those st andards where compliance can be demonstrated through barrier impacts. A manufacturer is required to exercise due care to ensure that his vehicle, if crashed, would meet the performance requirements of those standards incorporating barrier impact test pro cedures, but his certification may be based upon computer simulations, engineering studies, mathematical calculations, etc. We cannot advise you as to the cost of such tests, and suggest you write the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) for in formation on facilities that perform them. MVMA's address is 1620 I Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

I hope this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

MS. ERIKA Z. JONES U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 SEVENTH STREET, S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

4.2.1987

Dear Ms. Jones,

Thank you for your reply of Feb. 24 1987 to my letter of January 12, 1987 regarding regulations for home built or car kits.

What we have in mind is to take, for example, a 1974 Jaguar XJ6 (federal version) remove the engine, transmission, final drive, suspension, steering, brakes, etc. and all safety and emission related items and after refurbishing these parts, install them on a new chassis with a new body of our own (U.S.) manufacture. We are familiar with the process of bringing a gray market car into compliance with Federal regulations, having gone through the process and wondering if this same process, complete with all applicable engineering data, photo's and paperwork could somehow be applied to a limited production rebodied and rechassied vehicle without the expense of crashing cars into a wall.

If actual crash tests have to be made what is the cost and where is this done?

The following are the specifics that I hope will allow you to give me the answers I am looking for,:

-Chassis- New made in U.S.A. (first choice) -Chassis- Used original chassis but modified to accept new body (second choice)

-Old parts used- Engine, transmission, final drive, axles, brakes, steering, heating and defrosting equipment, windshield wiper motor and mechanisms, instruments, switches, controls, wiring harnesses, seats, fuel tank, seat belts, door and ignition switc h buzzer system, door handles, latches and locks. Impact absorbing bumper supports, etc.

-Suppled to Consumer fully assembled- (first choice) -Supplied partially disassembled- all parts supplied (second choice) -Supplied partially disassembled- all parts not supplied (third choice)

-Parts- Used would come from federal version of imported cars or domestic cars. All parts including new would meet D.O.T. & E.P.A. specifications.

Thank you in advance, I hope you can help us.

Sincerely,

Wil de Groot, President