ID: 1983-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Peterson Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Paul Scully Vice President Peterson Manufacturing Co. 4200 East 135th Street Grandview, Missouri 64030

Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of October 25, 1983, to Mr. Cavey of this agency asking for a copy "of an NHTSA ruling issued sometime ago which supposedly permits the triple identification lights normally mounted on the top rear center line of semi-trailers to be mounted at the lower sill location."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation furnished the State of Wisconsin on June 18, 1981, concerning this practice by Fruehauf Corporation. In summary, Fruehauf demonstrated to us the impracticability of mounting the lights at the top of a body with high-opening doors and a narrow header (chiefly because of vulnerability of the wiring).

The agency's interpretation was limited to vehicles of that specific configuration, and was not intended to apply to semi-trailers in general.

If you have any further questions, we shall be glad to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

October 25, 1983

Mr. Kevin Cavey Crash Avoidance The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Nassif Building Washington, DC 20590

Dear Kevin:

At the recent SAE Lighting Committee meetings, there was some discussion of an NHTSA ruling issued sometime ago which supposedly permits the triple identification lights normally mounted on the top rear center line of semi-trailers to be mounted at the lower sill location. Frankly, I was rather surprised at this and had not been aware of any such ruling. Most of the industry now feels that the NHTSA has granted the trailer industry permission to mount these triple identification lamps at the lower sill level rather than at the top most part of the trailer which had previously been required.

I would very much appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the reference letter which had been discussed granting permission for these lamps to be mounted at the lower heighth.

Since the rear clearance lamps are now normally mounted in combination with the turn signal lamps at the lower rear of the trailer, these identification lights were really the only high mounted lamps required on the rear of the trailers and they served well to indicate that a heavy, over 80" vehicle was on the highway. If these lights are permitted to be mounted at the lower level, the following drivers will have absolutely no means of knowing that a large, heavy-duty vehicle is in front of them. If information I have received is correct, in a few years time we have gone from these five high mounted lights on the rear of semi-trailers to no lighting at the top of the trailer. Obviously, a vehicle directly behind the trailer could block all access to the lower lights and a following driver, except the one directly behind the trailer, would have no way of knowing the vehicle was even there. I am quite surprised that NHTSA would grant such an exception on a permanent basis and therefore I would very much appreciate a copy of that so-called ruling which I understand has been issued.

Very truly yours,

Paul Scully Vice President

cc: Don Armacost, Jr. Joe Hodges

ID: 1983-3.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John R. Hughes -- Vice President, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Hughes:

This is in reply to your letter of October 13, 1983, furnishing the information I suggested in my letter of August 15 to Mr. Snyder.

As you know, I wrote Mr. Stalder of Carland on February 8, that the rail inspection vehicle you wish to purchase, is a "motor vehicle" as defined by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, because it was not manufactured exclusively for use on rails, and, in our experience, would spend some portion of its life on the public roads. In reply, Mr. Snyder raised the possibility that any off-track utilization by Kansas City Southern would be on its private roads, and I asked for clarification of that point. You have now indicated that this Mercedes but with railroad track conversion will indeed spend 30% of its time on the public roads.

We therefore affirm our interpretation of February 8, that this vehicle is a "motor vehicle" which must meet applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, even if Kansas City Southern purchases only one of them, and intends to scrap it at the end of its operating life.

Sincerely,

Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

October 13, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20024

In re: Swil Weg Vehicle Utilization and Disposition

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to clarify the use of the Zwel Weg/Mercedes vans being considered for purchase by Carland, Inc. for lease to The Kansas City Southern Railway Company. The vans will primarily be used in track inspection and transportation of maintenance of any personnel. The value of these vehicles is that they can be easily and economically utilized on the existing rail facilities. The vehicles would be used on public roads to transport personnel to and from public facilities (motels, restaurants, etc.) within their area of operations. It is estimated that the off track on (public) road utilization will be approximately 30%.

At present, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company is not utilizing any of these vehicles and there are no definite commitments for purchase by Carland, with the exception of the vehicle presently in the country--provided that this vehicle can be brought into conformity. When this is achieved, it is currently anticipated that an additional unit will be purchased for use by The Kansas City Southern Railway Company at its Shreveport, Louisiana facility. Future purchases will be contingent upon the success of these vehicles, subsequent prices and the needs of the railroad.

The vehicles will be used as long as is possible. When they are no longer economically operable (whether due to damage, or due to the vehicles becoming uneconomical to repair or maintain), they will be scrapped. The modifications which have been added to these vehicles to which the rail system is attached are permanently affixed by welding and are not transferable to another vehicle.

The conversion unit can, in any event, only be properly fitted by the Zwel Meg Company machinists. The Conversion unit, although accessible for servicing and maintenance, is not readily removable. The unit cannot be fitted to another vehicle without factory personnel and, in any event, the warranties would then become null and void.

The purchase price for the vehicle, as equipped, is approximately $40,000, which makes removal of the conversion unit and operating the vehicle as a road vehicle not only impractical, but also excessively expensive.

The Kansas City Southern Railway Company is particularly interested in this vehicle because there is no comparable machine made in the United States. The presently available vehicles all have what Kansas City Southern considers to be serious limitations and problems which have rendered them less than satisfactory in their use experience.

We appreciate your reconsideration of this matter.

Sincerely yours, Original signed by John H. Hughes

ID: 1983-3.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Eddie Wayne

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. Eddie Wayne 4306 Emmet Drive Erie, Pennsylvania 16511

Dear Mr. Wayne:

Thank you for your recent note asking if motorcycle headlamps could not be required to have a blue or green lens across the top portion, so that cycles could be distinguished from a four-wheeled motor vehicle with only one headlamp.

This is an interesting suggestion. However, we would not wish to impose a requirement that would interfere with the effectiveness of the single headlamp with which most motorcycles are equipped. The other side of the coin is marking the four-wheeled vehicle so that it is distinguishable from a motorcycle when one of its headlamps is out. We currently require passenger cars, light trucks, and others, to have amber or white parking lamps and amber front side marker lamps that are illuminated when the headlamps are on. While these lights may not be as readily visible from greater distances as a headlamp, nevertheless their presence on a vehicle does help to distinguish that vehicle from a motorcycle at night, when a headlamp is missing.

Thank you for your interest in safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Porsche Aktiengesellschaft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 28, 1983

DR. ING.h.c. F. Porsche AG z. H. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach West Germany

Dear Mr. Mayer:

This is in response to your 1etter of October 13, 1983, to Nelson Erickson of this agency, requesting our interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 118, Power-Operated Window Systems.

A recent amendment to section 3(d) of FMVSS 118 (48 Fed. Reg. 46793, October 14, 1983, copy enclosed) permits power window operation during the "interval between the time the locking device which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of either of its front doors." As you point out in your recent letter, the opening of the vehicle's front doors would typically be sensed through the interior roof lamp electrical circuit. This circuit would be activated when the door is opened 8 to 10 inches from the frame. You ask whether it is permissible under the standard to have power windows remain operable until the door is opened to this point where the roof lamp is activated.

FMVSS 118 is primarily intended to prevent the unsupervised operation of power windows by children remaining in a vehicle. See 48 Fed. Reg. 46793. Paragraph 3(d) was drafted to be consistent with this goal, since it is highly probable that the driver would still be in the vehicle during the specified time interval. Your proposed interpretation is also consistent with the standard's goal, since the driver would not likely be able to leave the vehicle with the door only ajar.

Therefore, we agree that power systems may remain operable under paragraph 3(d) of FMVSS 118 until the door is opened far enough to permit a small adult to leave the vehicle. The 8 to 10 inch point where the roof lamp is activated appears to be within this permissible range

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Mr. Nelson Erickson Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W.

Washington,D.C. 20590

USA

ESVG-My-re Weissach,October 13,1983

Subject: Request of Clarification of the term "opening" - FMVSS 118

Dear Mr. Erickson,

We kindly ask for clarification of the above mentioned term.

Your early favorable consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated as we presently can not continue to design any further on this matter until we receive an answer from you.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Ing.h.c.F. Porsche AG -Technical Administration-

Dr.Ing. h.c.F.porsche AG z.H. Herrn Mayer/ESV Postfach 11 40 7251 Weissach WEST GERMANY

Mayer Enclosure

Request of Clarification of the term "opening" in relation with FMVSS 118, Power-Operated Window System

With publication of Docket No. 82-07; Notice 2 (Federal Register Vol. 48, No. 88, Page 20237 of May 5, 1983) Standard 118 was amended to the extent that the use of the power window or partition systems are admissible, pursuant to S 3 (d), which states that: "during the interval between the time a running engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two door vehicle's door or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of either of "its front doors".

Porsche welcomes this amendment and would like to use this as a future opportunity to improve comfort and still maintain the present safety level.

In design, the interior roof lamp door switch is normally used to signal to the power source of the window regulators if the door is in an "opened" or in a "closed" position.

We now ran into the following problem which we believe to be a basic problem for all the automakers:

In practice it is not common to adjust the door switch or to locate the switch on the carbody in order to function if the door is opened just for a crack, forexample a fraction on an inch.

The building tolerances of the carbody in the area of the door-post are the result of a series of individual tolerances of various parts, including the door switch and is for this reason usually not to small.

Normally this switch actuates when the door is opened between 8" to 10" - the distance between the carbody and the rear end of the door. Even a slim adult will not be able to get out of the car through an opening like this. In our opinion it is admissible and for design necessary to pinpoint the extent of the opening in order to define the difference between the terms "opened" and "closed" in relation to a car door.

Your early favorable consideration of our request would be greatly appreciated since we have stopped designing until we receive an answer from you.

Sincerely yours,

Dr. Ing.h.c. F. Porsche AG -Technical Administration-

ID: 1983-3.29

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/01/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda Inc. -- H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your October 13, 1983 letter regarding the classification of certain hypothetical mini-van models as either passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, or trucks for purposes of complying with Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Your first question involved the effect of changes in floor pan geometry on this classification. You postulate separate cargo and passenger versions of the mini-van, with each version using identical suspension, steering and driveline components and each vehicle being of unibody construction. However, slight differences would exist in the floor pans of the two vehicles, with the passenger version having a lowered floor pan section to accommodate the rear seat.

Assuming that the cargo version has greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger carrying volume (see, e.g., 49 CFR part 523), we would consider that version to be a truck. (In the unlikely event the cargo version does not have that ratio of volumes, all versions of the mini-van would probably be considered passenger cars.) Since the passenger version of a mini-van would almost certainly have greater passenger-carrying volume than cargo carrying volume, that vehicle would be treated as a passenger car unless it meets the agency's "multipurpose passenger vehicle" definition. That definition provides, in relevant part, that an MPV is a motor vehicle designed to carry 10 people or less and which is constructed on a "truck chassis." The "chassis" of a vehicle includes the vehicle's power train as well as its entire load supporting structure. In the case of a vehicle using unibody construction, this load supporting structure would technically include the floor pan.

The fact that a common chassis is used in a family of vehicles, one member of which is classified as a "truck," is evidence that the common chassis is a "truck chassis." However, further evidence is needed to demonstrate that the chassis has truck attributes, such as information showing the design to be more suitable for heavy duty, commercial operation than a passenger car chassis. This further evidence is necessary since otherwise the introduction of a cargo carrying version of an existing passenger car could result in the reclassification of the passenger car into an MPV, if the agency only considered the issue of whether a common chassis is used. For example, in the past, certain station wagons have been marketed without rear seats and with other modifications which render them the functional equivalent of a cargo van. The agency does not believe it to be appropriate in such a situation to reclassify the basic station wagon as an MPV.

The floor pan differences mentioned in your first question do not appear to be so significant as to require treating the two mini-van versions as having different chassis. The agency does not consider minor floor pan differences to negate the fact that two versions of the same family of vehicles employ the same "chassis," since to do so would likely mean that no unibody vehicles could be classified as MPV's. However, in the absence of any information regarding the extent to which the common chassis has truck-like attributes, we cannot state whether the vehicle would be treated as an MPV.

Your second question involves the effect of various seating designs on whether a unibody constructed mini-van is classified as an MPV. Since the seats are not part of the vehicle chassis, these variations should have no impact on whether the vehicle is an MPV. (Fuel economy classifications are dependent on seat configuration however--see 49 CFR Part 523.)

Your third question involves the significance of the relative sales levels, order of introduction, and actual existence of two versions (cargo and passenger) of the mini-van. In theory, a passenger version of a mini-van could be classified as an MPV even if no cargo version were offered in the U.S. or indeed if none were ever produced. In such a situation, however, the manufacturer would be under a heavy burden to demonstrate that what is sold as a passenger carrying vehicle in fact has a "truck chassis," with heavy duty, commercially suited attributes. The existence of a truck version, and the fact that the truck version was either designed first or was the principal focus of the design would be additional factors which would tend to indicate that the chassis is a truck chassis.

If you have further questions in this matter, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 13 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Councel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Sreet, S .W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt :

A great deal of confusion exists in the automotive industry concerning the precise classification of 'mini-vans'. Specifically, these vehicles could be classified as passenger vehicles, multipurpose vehicles (MPV), or light-duty trucks (LDT), depending on the criteria applied. Mazda (North America), Inc. is interested in this subject and has a number of items that have not been satisfied by existing definitions.

Please examine the following questions and respond to relevant safety compliance implications, if any.

1. Existing standards (MVSS ? 571.3 (b)) indicate the criteria for a multipurpose vehicle as being 'constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road use'. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction --a) Is the same chassis considered in the modification of the floor pan from LDT to MPV? (See Sketch 1).

b) What impact would floor pan geometry modification from the truck versions to the MPV version have on MPV classification, assuming identical suspension, steering and driveline components?

c) Can a common floor pan be used for both the truck version and the MPV version, with the addition of a flat platform in the truck version --

1) Bolted in place (removable)?

2) Welded in place (permanent)? (See Sketch 2).

2. Assuming the original truck is of unibody construction, what influence does the rear seating design have on MPV classification if the additional seating configurations are --

a) Pedestal assemblies bolted to the floor pan that when removed result in a flat surface? (See Sketch 3).

b) Attached seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward together at a single pivot with respect to the floor pan result in a flat surface? (See sketch 4).

c) Separate seat cushion and back assemblies that fold forward sequentially at two pivot points resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 5).

d) Fold down seat backs attached at the pivot point to a stationary seat cushion resulting in a flat surface? (See Sketch 6).

3. If a MPV classification is desired as 'derived' from a truck chassis --

a) Assuming the engineering, design, tooling, testing, etc. is completed for the truck version, must the truck version be built at al1 to insure MPV classification?

b) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the MPV version be introduced first followed by a later truck version introduction?

c) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, can the truck and MPV be introduced simultaneously?

d) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, must the truck be introduced in the United States market to insure MPV classification?

e) Assuming a truck version must be introduced, does the proportion of truck versus MPV versions sold influence the MPV classification if --

1) Both versions are sold in the United States?

2) Only the MPV version is sold in the United States?

Thank you for your help in this important matter.

Very truly yours,

H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc:Mr. R. Fairchild

INSERT GRAPH

ID: 1983-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

September 6, 1983 NOA-30

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. Your request was in regard to a type of brake reservoir you are considering producing which would contain common fluid for the brake circuits and the brake hydraulic power assist unit. The issue raised by your letter was whether section S5.4.2 of the stnadard permits the common fluid to be counted as part of the minimum capacity required for the braking system. As discussed below, the answer to that question is no.

The first sentence of section S5.4.2 states:

Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard.

As noted by your letter, the agency has previously interpreted this section with respect to a brake reservoir servicing both the braking system and the clutch. In an October 9, 1981, letter to Toyota, we explained:

This section specifies the total minimum fluid capacity that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs must have. That amount is determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system, i.e., by the fluid displacement which results when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced bythe reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position. The purpose of this requirement is to assure that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes.

The agency interprets section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. If fluid is available to both the brakes and the clutch, some of that fluid will be used by the clutch in normal service and thus be unavailable to the brakes. In the event of clutch failure, all of the common fluid may be used by the clutch. Therefore, while Standard No. 105 does not prohibit manufacturers from producing master cylinders with reservoirs that have some fluid available to both the braking system and the clutch, none of that common fluid may be counted toward meeting the minimum requirements of section S5.4.2.

This same rationale applies to a reservoir which contains common fluid for the brake circuits and brake hydraulic power assist unit. As indicated in our October 1981 letter, the minimum fluid capacity requirements were determined by reference to the vehicle's braking system for the purpose of assuring that a vehicle's braking system reservoirs have adequate fluid capacity to service the brakes, i.e., the wheel cylinders and pistons. More specifically, the requirement for minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs move from a new lining, fully retracted position to a fully worn, fully applied position, was based upon maintaining a sufficient supply of fluid to enable a vehicle to stop even when there was complete brake lining wear-out in the service brakes. Put another way, the requirement assures an adequate supply of brake fluid over the lifetime of the brake linings, even if a driver fails to add fluid as part of routine maintenance.

This purpose would not be met if fluid available to both the brake circuits and brake hydraulic power assist unit was counted toward meeting the minimum fluid capacity requirements. Some of the common fluid would be used by the brake hydraulic power assist unit in normal service and thus be available to the brake circuits. Moreover, in some instances of brake hydraulic power assist unit failure (e.g., a failure in the brake hydraulic power assist unit return line), all of the common fluid might be used by that unit.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

May 11, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590 RE: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 105-75

Dear Mr. Berndt

For future models, BMW is considering a new braking system with hydraulic power assist. Included in this system is a brake fluid reservoir which would contain common fluid for the brake circuits and the brake hydraulic power assist pump. This design is shown in the attached drawing, where X and Y are the individual reservoir compartments for the brake circuits and Z is the compartment for the brake hydraulic power assist pump. The area marked W represents fluid available to both the brake circuits and the brake power assist pump.

We request an interpretation of S 5.4.2 (reservoir capacity) of FMVSS 105-75, with respect to the proposed brake fluid reservoir described above.

We have reviewed the various interpretations given by NHTSA, and are unable to find any opinions which apply to our specific reservoir. Among the interpretations applicable to "multi-purpose" reservoirs is one given to Toyota in a letter from Mr. F. Berndt, dated October 9, 1981. The response to Toyota presented the agency's position that "the minimum fluid capacity requirements for brake reservoirs be met by fluid which is not available to the clutch, either during normal use or in the event of clutch failure".

We believe that the agency's position is appropriate with respect to a common brake/clutch system. A leak in the line to the clutch would not necessarily cause failure of the clutch itself; hence, there would be no warning that a leak existed and that the fluid level in the reservoir was being depleted. Thus, a driver could go through a complete set of brake linings without recognizing the leak. It is therefore brake and clutch systems should not be counted towards meeting the reservoir capacity requirements of S 5.4.2.

If, however, a leak should occur in the brake power assist subsystem of BMW's proposed design, the braking power assist ("boost") fails after a few brakings, Because the Boost pump compartment (Z) of the reservoir has been emptied. In this case, the fluid level warning lamp would be activated, due to the fact that the fluid level warning point is located above the walls of the boost compartment. Additionally, the warning lamp provided specifically for power assist unit pressure will be activated. Vehicle braking can be achieved through the application of increased pedal pressures, in compliance with S 5.1.2.1, S 5.1.3.4, S 6.13, and S 7.9 of FMVSS 105-75. Further, the amount of fluid remaining in compartments X and Y of the BMW reservoir is sufficient to meet the requirements of the second sentence of S 5.4.2., which is as follows:

"Reservoirs shall have completely separate compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston."

With regard to the total minimum capacity requirements of S 5.4.2 (full lining wear) under the condition of a power assist unit leak, neither the sum of the two brake circuit compartment volumes (X,Y) nor either of them are equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all wheel cylinders move from a new lining condition to a fully worn position.

We believe it highly unlikely that, under the conditions just described (lack of power assist, 100 - 150 pound pedal force for deceleration, and activation of two warning lights) a driver would wear down a complete set of brake linings over a typical range of 20,000 to 40,000 miles. In such a case, it would be reasonably expected that a driver would seek repair at a dealer or service station immediately upon loss of brake power assist and long before the brake linings were fully worn.

We respectfully submit, therefore, that the power assist unit should be considered an integral part of the brake system and should be recognized as a subsystem of the brake system for which the same requirements applying to brake subsystem leakage should also be valid. In our view this is a reasonable assumption because, as detailed earlier, the driver will receive immediate warning of a fluid leak, in the form of a loss of brake power assist, as well as activation of two warning lights. Similarly, a loss of fluid from a brake circuit would also be obvious to the driver, since pedal effort would increase noticeably and a warning light would be activated. As a further example, the proposed BMW system would comply with the following sections of FMVSS 105-75, if the power assist unit is considered a subsystem and if a leak developed in that subsystem (compartment Z):

S 5.1.2 Partial Failure S 5.4.1 Master Cylinder Reservoir S 6.13 Control Forces S 7.9 Service Brake System Test Partial Failure

We believe a final point which should be considered by the NHTSA regarding BMW's proposed design is international harmonization. As an exporter of vehicles to a number of markets throughout the world, our goal is to design components (including brake fluid reservoirs) to comply with as many different national regulations as possible.

In the case of our proposed reservoir, the U.S. and Japanese requirements conflict with regard to total reservoir capacity. FMVSS 105-75, based on previous NHTSA interpretations, refers to the fluid volume available exclusively to the brake system. On the other hand, Japanese requirements apply to the total reservoir capacity, including every and all subsystems. If the volumes of X and Y were increased to provide sufficient fluid within them to meet the requirements of S 5.4.2., we would be forced, in order to comply with Japanese regulations, to increase the volume W as shown on the attached drawing. The total reservoir capacity, already a significant amount (700 cc), would have to be increased dramatically (43 ?) to approximately one liter in order to meet NHTSA's interpretation of brake/clutch reservoirs. Further, we would be required to raise the position of the switch point for the fluid level warning light. This could result in unnecessary activations of the warning signal. Through normal use, the fluid could drop to a level which would switch-on the warning light, but this level of fluid would still meet S5.4.2 requirements and would not represent a "low" fluid level condition.

Interpretation of the power assist unit as a subsystem of the proposed BMW brake system will allow BMW to market a common reservoir worldwide, rather than being forced to manufacture a unique reservoir exclusively for the U.S. market.

To summarize, the proposed BMW brake fluid reservoir would contain the S 5.4.2 total minimum capacity fluid requirement when the brake power assist unit is considered to be a subsystem of the total brake system. We believe that inclusion of the power assist unit circuit as a brake subsystem is valid for the following reasons. First, in the event of a fluid leak in the power assist unit circuit, the driver would receive multiple warnings (increased pedal effort, warning lights) in a manner analogous to the warnings received when a brake circuit leak occurs. Second, the proposed BMW system, including the power assist unit subsystem would be accurately described by the S 4. definition of "split service brake system", which "...means a brake system consisting of two or more subsystems actuated by a single control designed so that a leakage-type failure of a pressure component in a single subsystem (except structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems) shall not impair the operation of any other subsystem."

Accordingly, we believe that the proposed BMW brake fluid reservoir described in this letter would fulfill the requirements of S 5.4.2 with regard to total minimum reservoir capacity. We ask that you confirm our interpretation at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

WS/fw 0104 - 83

Encl.

BMW PROPOSED BRAKE FLUID RESERVOIR

***Insert Diagram Below***

ID: 1983-3.30

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/05/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Duane W. Duvall

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Duvall:

We have received your letter of October 27, 1943, informing us of your plans to provide a front-end replacement kit for 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas. You have asked whether incorporating a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware will meet safety regulations. You have also asked for a copy of front lighting requirements, and for information on how you may certify your kit for national distribution.

As you have not provided us with a description of all equipment items in the kit, I can offer only general guidance. There are very few requirements for fabricators of kits intended to modify used vehicles. The Federal motor vehicle safety standards are of two types: those that apply to vehicle systems, and those that apply to individual equipment items. The so-called "bumper standard" is an example of a systems standard. Standard No. 215, Exterior Protection, which applied to passenger cars manufactured between September 1, 1972, and Sept. 1, 1978, did not directly apply to the bumper itself but established a level of damage resistance to be met by the vehicle in low-speed frontal impacts.

On the other hand, the vehicle lighting standard applies to both lighting systems and replacement lighting equipment. The primary statutory obligation of a kit supplier lies in this area--to determine if any item of equipment in the kit is covered by an equipment standard, and then to insure that the item meets the standard. For example, Standard No. 104, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, required 1971-77 Chevrolet Vegas to be equipped with sealed beam headlamps. Here unsealed European headlamps to be furnished as part of the kit, that sale would be in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Other equipment standards cover brake hoses, tires, brake fluids, glazing, and seat belts. Usually the manufacturer of equipment items covered by standards will certify compliance with Federal requirements by marking them with the symbol "DOT". In that event, no recertification by the kit supplier is required. A further important obligation of a kit supplier is to insure that safety-related defects are absent, or do not develop, in any motor vehicle equipment that he fabricates. If such occur, he is required to notify purchasers and remedy the defects.

There is also a provision of the Safety Act that has some relevance to your operation. Although a vehicle owner may modify his car in any manner he chooses, a restriction is established on modifications by others. That restriction is that "no device or element of design" added to a vehicle enabling it to comply with a safety standard shall be "rendered inoperative in whole or in part." Thus, were a repair shop to remove the Vega front end and replace it with yours, the shop must insure that the Vega upon reassembly remains in compliance with the standards that originally applied to it. Although the kit supplier is not required under the Safety Act to insure that the Vega continues to comply with Standard No. 215, such insurance obviously assists the modifier in meeting its Federal responsibilities, and your incorporation of a 1973 bumper and attachments is helpful. The modified Vega must also continue to meet Federal lighting requirements, such as being equipped with front side marker lamps, and having no cover or other object over the headlamps when they are in use.

To assist you, I enclose copies of Standards Nos. 108 and 215 as they were in effect on October 1, 1977, the requirements were substantially the same for the other years in which you are interested. There is no charge and I am returning your check. If you have further questions, we shall be happy to answer them.

Sincerely, Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

October 27, 1983 Office of Chief Council 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, DC 20590

To Whom it May Concern:

A local agency referred me to this administration for some information that I need. Please send the proper pamphlets or publications.

I am designing a fiberglass front-end replacement kit for Chevrolet Vegas, years 1971-77. The rear will be unchanged, I plan to incorporate a 1973 bumper and mounting hardware, will this meet safety regulations?

I also need front exterior lighting regulations, and the procedure to certify this kit for national distribution.

Your prompt response is sincerely appreciated. I am enclosing $2 for any postage or duplication fees.

Thanks, Original signed by Duane W. Duvall (206) 766-6845 901 North Beach Rd.

Bow, VA 98232

ID: 1983-3.31

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: TWI Inc. -- Bill Perzinsky, President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Capt. Perzinsky:

This is in reply to Your letter of October 14, 1983, to Mr. Vinson of my staff regarding your F-S-700 A flasher. The device is essentially a slender bar of lights mounted on the rear panel shelf of a passenger car. The left and right sides blink to indicate turns in the appropriate direction. The entire bar lights up when the brake pedal is applied. You ask for our "approval" of this device.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standard on lighting forbids the installation of motor vehicle equipment that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. Stop lamps are required by the standard. They must be red. They must go on when the brake pedal is applied. The stop signal put out by the F-S-700 flasher is amber, not red. Therefore, an amber signal coming on at the same time as a red one would impair the effectiveness of the red stop lamp by creating confusion.

The Federal lighting standard allows either amber or red turn signal lamps. There is obviously a potential for confusion if your amber light device is on a vehicle whose turn signals are red. But an even greater problem with interior-mounted lamps, whatever their color, is the reflection that they cause in the rear glass, particularly when it's raining or snowing, interfering with the rear vision of the vehicle's driver.

For the reasons given above the F-S-700 A flasher causes us some concern. Further, you should investigate whether the laws of the jurisdiction where you wish to sell this device will permit its installation and use.

Sincerely,

Oct. 14th, 1983

Dear Mr. Vinson:

We are sending you a flyer of our new product. F-S-700 A 4 star flasher.Would like to know if this type of light would meet standard safety.I would like to send you a sample of this light, as you would be amazed what this light can save lot of lifes and accidents.

I have one installed in my car, every one that see me with it wants on his car. I can't sell them until I get approval from Highway Traffic Safety. Please Let me hear from you at your earlest convenient time, thank you. If you need a sample let me know.

2. Flyers enclosed

Sincerely,

Capt. Bill Perinszy President TWI INC.

ID: 1983-3.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Research & Development, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 12 1983

NOA-30 Mr. Shizuo Suzuki Nissan Research & Development, Inc. 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 707 P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Suzuki:

This responds to your letter of September 22, 1983, regarding the applicability of Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to a power window switch separated from and located in front of a conventional armrest. Additionally, you ask for clarification of the definition of an "armrest" under paragraph S3.5 of the standard.

Upon review of your sketches of the power window switch and conventional armrest, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that this switch does not come within the scope of the meaning of the term "armrest." The design and location of the conventional armrest would apparently preclude uyse of the structure housing the switch as an armrest. Therefore, the power window switch is not subject to the requirements of S3.5 of Standard No. 201.

In support of your contention that S3.5 does not apply to the power window switch, you refer to an oral interpretation of 1976 concerning assist straps and armrests. Please note that this agency is not bound by any oral interpretations as to the requirements of Federal safety standards. Although agreeing with Nissan's conclusion that Standard No. 201 is not applicable to the diagrammed power window switch, this agency did not base its determination on the stated oral interpretation of 1976.

Further, you ask for a clarification of the definition of an "armrest." The term "armrest" is not defined under Standard No. 201. The basic meaning of "armrest" in Webster's New Third International Dictionary is "a support for the arm." To define this term further would only serve to limit this agency's ability to respond adequately under Standard No. 201 to future innovations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC. Washington, DC 20037 September 22, 1983 Ref: W-024-S Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Room 5219 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing on behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. to request an interpretation concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201 "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact" (49 CFR Part 571).

Nissan's question is whether or not the requirements of S 3.5 question of MVSS 201 are applicable to the power window switch which is located in front of a conventional arm rest as shown below:

"INSERT"

Furthermore, it would be most helpful if you could clarify the definition of an "Arm Rest."

The Engineering Staff of Nissan think that the power window switch does not need to meet the requirements of MVSS 201 for the following reasons:

* The power window switch cannot be used as a conventional arm rest. Moreover, there is a conventional arm rest.

* When Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. asked for an oral interpretation in 1976, concerning whether the assist strap shown below had to meet the requirements of MVSS 201, NHTSA replied as follows:

* If the assist strap is integrated with the arm rest, the assist strap must meet the requirements of S 3.5 of MVSS 201.

* However, if the assist strap is separated from the arm rest, and even if both parts are combined when installed on a door, that assist strap does not need to meet the requirements of S 3.5 of MVSS 201.

"INSERT"

Thank you for your prompt reply in interpreting this matter for me.

Very truly yours,

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

SS:kms

cc: Mr. Steve Oesch Chief Counsel Office

ID: 1983-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: State of New Jersey Department of Transportation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Champion Home Builders Co. (Std. 217)

TEXT:

Mr. Vincent L. Lobascio Senior Investigator, Motor Carriers State of New Jersey Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Inspection Box 10009 Newark, New Jersey 07101

Dear Mr. Lobascio:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, in which you questioned a prior interpretation of Safety Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR S 571.217). You noted that you disagree with an August 18, 1983 interpretation addressed to Champion Home Builders, which stated that doors may be considered as emergency exits for the purposes of section S5.2.1, provided that those doors meet the requirements applicable to emergency exits. I have enclosed a copy of this interpretation for your information.

You stated in your letter that you agree that doors may be counted as emergency exits, but only if the requirements of S5.2.1.1 are met. In other words, the only time doors can be counted as emergency exits in your opinion is when a bus has at least one side door for every three designated seating positions. That statement reflects an incorrect interpretation of the requirements of section S5.2.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 217 sets forth requirements for the provision of emergency exits in buses. Section S5.2.1 contains the requirements applicable to buses with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. This is the group of vehicles your letter addresses. Section S5.2.1 requires that all buses provide side exits and at least one rear exit (a roof exit may be substituted for the rear exit). S5.2.1 places no limit on the types of openings that may be used as exits. As noted in my August 18 interpretation, the agency has never stated that doors could not be counted as side exits, provided that they met all other requirements applicable to emergency exits. Section S5.2.1.1 allows, as an alternative to complying with the requirements for side exits and a rear exit, the exclusive use of side doors as emergency exits. Under section S5.2.1.1, buses may be equipped with one side door for every three designated seating positions. This section in no way limits the availability of side doors as side exits under section S5.2.1; it merely adds a special case for buses not equipped with a rear exit or roof exit.

You went on to state your opinion that a particular manufacturer's bus does not comply with the requirements of section S5.2, because the door designated as an emergency exit does not satisfy the requirements applicable to emergency exits. I am sure that you understand it is impossible for this agency to determine, based on photographs and a description of the bus, whether a bus certified as complying with those requirements in fact does not comply. Our enforcement personnel will specifically check one of these buses to ensure that they do comply with Standard No. 217.

I thank you for your efforts to ensure the safety of bus passengers, and hope that you will contact us again if you believe that some model of bus fails to comply with the requirements of a Federal standard. The cooperation of State officials is essential to this agency's efforts to improve safety on the public roads.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enc. 8/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to John G. Sims (omitted here).

September 28, 1983

Mr. Stephen Kratzke Office of Chief Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

This letter follows recent conversation with you and relates to the application and intent of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217 regarding bus window retention and release. The objective of this correspondence is to bring about a clear interpretation of the subject standard which my agency, Motor Carrier Inspection of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, is committed to enforce.

It is understood that Arcola Bus Sales of East 15 Pleasant Avenue, Paramus, New Jersey 07652 has received an opinion from you which states that the front entrance door (s) can be included in meeting the requirements of S5.2. Please be reminded that the subject vehicles are all over 10,000 lbs. GVWR and accordingly all FMVSS-217 requirements apply except for S5.2.2, the latter section applicable to buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less.

In my conversation with you on September 22, 1983, you stated that FMVSS-217 does not exclude doors with respect to meeting the emergency exit requirements of S5.2 and you further stated that no area of the requirements excludes doors on vehicles over 10,000 lbs. GVWR. I pointed out that I agreed with you that doors could be included, but that the requirements of S5.2.1.1 must be met, said requirement very clearly stating that a bus having a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. may satisfy the unobstructed opening requirements by providing at least one side door for each three passenger seating positions in the vehicle. The vehicles in question do not provide such an arrangement, but merely have one push-out window on each side, plus a right front entrance door of the "scissor type" having a lever assembly actuated by the driver and a "sedan type" door on the driver's side. The vehicles all have a GVWR of 11,000 lbs. or over. (Please refer to enclosed photographs showing the type vehicle and doors, etc.).

The two push-out windows on the subject vehicles (one on each side) measure 28 1/4" x 22 1/2", giving a total opening of 635.6 sq. in. Accountable area cannot exceed 536 sq. in. Seating ranges from 19 to 21 (or over), not including driver. S5.2 states designated seating positions". It does not state that the driver's seat is not a designated seating position). Computations with respect to 19 ro 20 seats indicate a 40% requirement for each side as being 509.20 sq. in. and 536 sq. in. respectively. Since no emergency exit can be credited for more than 536 sq. in. the subject vehicle requires more than the one emergency exit on each side, if seating is over 20.

The following sections of FMVSS-217 are respectfully brought to your attention along with the matters in dispute:

S5.2.1.1 as per Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 173-Wed., Sept. 6, 1972 this section allows for doors to satisfy the requirements if at least one side door for each three passenger seating position is provided. This section does not state that a front entrance door, not adjacent to any seat will meet the requirements, this includes the driver's sedan type door. The section is explicit in it's intent and wording and is not meant for a bus of the subject type.

S5.2.2 applies to buses with a GVWR of 10,000 lbs. or less and allows doors (c) which may meet the unobstructed opening requirements of S5.2. The subject vehicles are all over 10,000 lbs. GVWR.

S5.3.1 relates to release mechanisms and areas of their locations. The front entrance door on subject vehicles have a lever actuated (by driver) mechanism and it is felt that FMVSS-217 is not intended to include such a mechanism as a release mechanism especially since any damage to same could render such mechanism inoperable and thus not allow the door to be readily opened for use as an emergency exit.

S5.3.2 relates to the window retention test and force applications (low and high force applications) allowing for the manual release of the exit by a single occupant and states the "push-out motion" of an emergency exit as being outward and perpendicular to the exit surface. The doors on the subject vehicle do not meet this requirement.

S5.4 states very explicitly the requirement regarding the emergency exit extension. This section clearly states that after the actuation of a release mechanism (S6) and before and after the retention test required (S5.1) and using the reach distances and force level factors stated (S5.3.2), the push-out window, or other emergency exit shall be manually extendable by a single occupant. The front entrance door, it is felt, does not meet this requirement. Further the requirements of S5.5.2 are not met by the front entrance door (s) in that markings are required (legible from stipulated areas). The aisle leading to the door is not occupied by passengers.

In summation, the following is presented for your review:

In the Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 173, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 1972, International Harvester requested and was granted an exemption from requirements of S5.2.1 for its Stageway Coach Conversion because that vehicle provided at least one door for each three passenger spaces in the vehicle. Section S5.2.1 was amended to provide that buses having a GVWR of more than 10,000 lbs. may alternatively meet the unobstructed openings requirement by providing at least one door for each three passenger spaces provided. This was done because the vehicles in question are equipped with transverse seats having a door at each seat location. This is not the case in a bus. Nothing in the Federal Register refers to buses, unless the same requirement is not applicable to doors.

Furthermore, it is questionable whether a front entrance door can be readily opened in an emergency since there are other mechanisms involved which may prevent a passenger from doing so, thus defeating the intent of S5.3.1 and S5.3.2. In addition the front entrance door in the case in question, has not been proven to meet the requirements of S5.4 and S5.1, relative to emergency exit extension and retention test. S5.3.2 clearly explains the manual release of an emergency exit by a single occupant and that the emergency exit shall open outward and perpendicular to the exit surface and states the force applications. The front entrance door of the Vehicle in question has not been proven to meet this requirement.

The exemption given to International Harvester was explicit. The Vehicle in question does not fall into that category. I feel if NHTSA wishes to allow this it should first test the vehicle under the provisions of FMVSS-217 and ascertain that all sections therein are strictly adhered to. I do not feel that the vehicle (front entrance door) will meet the requirements. The exemption was not meant for buses, in the normal sense of the word, unless a door is provided for each three passenger seat spaces. The front entrance door of a bus is located forward of the passenger compartment, in most cases.

Inasmuch as the Motor Carrier Inspection Section of the New Jersey Department of Transportation is a regulatory body enforcing the safety regulations adopted, it is imperative that a complete clarification based on the "intent" of requirements be made. The safety of passengers with respect to emergency egress is a prime concern of our agency. It is respectfully requested that a thorough evaluation of FMVSS-217 be made as it pertains to the matter at hand and that we will receive an expeditious answer to this correspondence because of it's importance.

Thank you kindly for your cooperation in this matter.

Yours truly,

Vincent L. Labascio, Senior Investigator, Motor Carriers

cc: S. T. Messina, Supervisor, Motor Carriers

NOTE:

Please direct all correspondence to the below named office.

State of New Jersey Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Inspection Box 10009 Newark, New Jersey 07101