ID: 1983-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/83

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: PEKKA SUURONEN -- PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT MANAGER RACEMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.

TITLE: NOA - 30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 07/27/83 FROM PEKKA SUURONEN TO NHTSA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Suuronen:

This is in reply to your letters of July 27, 1983, and October 6, 1983, asking whether a sealed headlamp with "replaceable European H4 bulb," or "Ford bulb (6 standard sizes)" are considered "legal," (like Cibie BOBI) "provided it meets with all the applicable SAE standards."

Cibie certifies that its "BOBI" headlamp complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Thus far, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has not contested that certification.

We do not understand your reference to the Ford bulb in "6 standard sizes." The only size of that bulb that may be used in the new replaceable bulb headlamp systems is the one specified in the recent amendment to Standard No. 108. However, Volkswagen has petitioned for rulemaking to allow the H4 bulb.

Sincerely,

ID: 1983-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. I. A. Wuddel Westfalische Metall Industrie KG Hueck & Co. Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt Germany

Dear Mr. Wuddel:

This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1983, to August Burgett of this agency. With reference to the recent amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permitting semi-sealed replaceable bulb headlamp systems, you have asked whether a headlamp assembly would be allowed which also incorporated a European H1 or H2 bulb, "for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it."

It is our understanding that the H1 bulbs are commonly used in European lamps as the principal lighting source, and that H2 bulbs are used in high intensity supplemental front lamps. Therefore, use of one of these bulbs in a replaceable bulb headlamp would create, in effect, a system of four headlamps. The agency recently denied a petition by Volkswagen for a four-lamp system at this time using the standardized replaceable light source (copy enclosed), because of unresolved issues. We therefore are currently unable to allow a system such as you propose with the H1 or H2 bulb in a common housing with the standardized replaceable light source, creating in effect a four-lamp headlamp system. Further, paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108, prohibits the installation of additional lighting equipment which impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108, and there is the distinct possibility that this could occur through incorporation of the H1 and H2 bulbs.

Use of the H1 and H2 bulbs in separate and independent units for driving or fog lamps remains permissible, subject to regulation by the individual American States, as these items are not covered by Standard No. 108.

You may be interested to know that Volkswagen of America has recently petitioned us for rulemaking that would allow use of the H4 bulb instead of the standardized replaceable light source in replaceable bulb headlamp systems. A decision is pending whether to grant this petition.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

Mr. A. Burgett Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. USA - Washington, D.C. 20590

BV Wu/Mei 7509 09-09-1983

Dear Sir,

Since optional headlighting systems are allowed according to FMVSS No. 108 (Docket No. 81-11, Notice 3) on certain promises, we intend to develop a semi-sealed headlamp assembly with two adjacent reflectors, moulded as one part, and a lens covering both reflector sections. The lens and the dual reflector would be sealed. The outward reflector would be equipped with a standardized replaceable bulb (Ford bulb) for the required upper and lower beam, and the inward reflector would be equipped with a european replaceable bulb type "H1" or "H2" for an auxiliary driving beam or a front fog lamp, as our customer requests it. The optical axis of the system would be parallel. On surface of the lens area for upper and lower beam there would be three aiming pads by which a common aiming adjustment of both the upper/lower beam and the auxiliary driving or fog lamp beam could be carried out.

We would like to learn whether such a headlamp assembly would be allowed or it is required that the aiming adjustment must be possible for each reflector.

Please find attached sketch.

Yours sincerely

Westfalische Metall Industrie Kommanditgesellschaft Hueck & Co. i. A. Wuddel Headlamp Assembly

*Insert diagram here

ID: 1983-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/19/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Libby-Owens-Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Richard P. Keim Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services Libby-Owens-Ford Company 811 Madison Avenue P.O. Box 799 Toledo, Ohio 43695

Dear Mr. Keim:

This responds to your letter of September 26, 1983, regarding the certification and marking requirements for glazing under S6 of Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You stated that you are interested in "out-sourcing some of your replacement auto glass requirements" to other manufacturers and sought clarification on four points concerning glazing identification.

Section 6 of Standard No. 205 deals specifically with the certification and marking requirements for glazing materials. The standard incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways," Z26.6-1966 (ANS Z26). You ask whether it is permissible under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations to allow another manufacturer, using its own DOT code mark, to put an LOF trademark and logo on its glass.

Section 6 of ANS Z26 states that a manufacturer shall mark safety glazing materials with its own "distinctive designation or trademark." The purpose behind these markings was to aid in the tracing of glazing materials and the enforcement of applicable standards. Your letter states that the other manufacturer will place their DOT code mark on the safety glass. Since the other manufacturer is using its own DOT code mark, the tracing and enforcement policies will not be circumvented. Therefore, under these circumstances, the use of LOF's logo and trademark is not violative of Standard No. 205.

Further, you ask whether another glass manufacturer can use LOF's "M" number on his glass with LOF's permission. As long as the model number is an accurate description of the specific glazing material being produced, the other manufacturer may use it.

Lastly, you ask if the name of the country of manufacture must appear on the safety glass if not manufactured in the United States. The standard does not mandate that the country of manufacture be marked on the safety glazing materials.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 26, 1983

Mr. Steven Oesch Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration 400-7th Street S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

This is in regard to our phone conversation of September 22, 1983. We are contemplating out-sourcing some of our replacement auto glass requirements with other manufacturers but we feel we need a clarification of the requirements of manufacturers identification on the actual glass parts.

LOF's "DOT" registration No. is 15. This number along with the LOF logo "AS" number "M" number, etc. appears in the monogram on each piece of glass we produced in accordance with DOT regulations.

Our scenario is this. We have been told by other glass manufacturers that they could produce glass for LOF using LOF's logo ( or name ) and glass description in combination with their "DOT" registration number. An example of this is depicted below:

Typical monogram as currently placed on glass produced by LOF:

"INSERT"

Proposed alteration of monogram to be used by another manufacturer producing glass for LOF with LOF's permission, would be to substitute their own DOT Registration No. in place of DOT 15.

Questions which we have raised include:

1. Can another glass manufacturer put an LOF trademark on his glass with permission from LOF?

2. Can another glass manufacturer put the LOF logo on his glass with permission from LOF?

3. Can another glass manufacturer use LOF's "M" number on his glass with permission from LOF?

4. Must the name of the country of manufacture appear on the glass if manufactured in a country other than the U.S.? For example - Made in U.S.A does not have to appear on our glass.

If the answer to any of these questions is no, please explain if there is any other substitution(s) that could be made which would make it permissible for another manufacturer to put the name LOF on glass he manufactures.

It has been indicated to us that some manufacturers are already producing glass using other companies names on their glass, but using their own DOT number.

Your consideration of this issue and prompt reply will be greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Richard P. Keim Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services

RPK/slj

cc: A. E. Riggs J. M. Oathout R. E. Miller C. C. Washing J. W. Leonard G. C. McNaul

ID: 1983-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: LJM Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 22 1983

Mr. Lee Jay Mandell President, LJH Associates. Inc. 22030 Lanark Street Canoga Park, California 91034

Dear Mr. Mandell:

This is in response to your letter of October 19, 1983, discussing a lighting product that you have developed and asking for "the approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

Your device utilizes the body panel between the left and right rear lights to emphasize braking, right and left turns, hazard flashing, and backing up. Roughly, your devise operates by lights spreading from the center of the panel outward, in either or both directions.

We think that there is a great potential for confusion that this devise could create since it is so unlike anything seen before on a motor vehicle. In the stopping mode the driver following will see the steady light of the stop lamp at the edge of the vehicle, but also the dynamic lights of your devise spreading out from the center. The same dynamic light spread is seen but is meant to indicate something entirely different when both turn signal lamps are operating simultaneously in the hazard warning mode. Thus, the potential for impairment of the required lighting equipment exists.

Generally, we do not favor any lights on the rear of a vehicle that are not required by the Federal lighting standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 19, 1983

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Chief Counsel

Dear Sir:

I am president of a small consulting firm in Los Angeles that has developed a product that at worst I believe to be a decorative device and at best I believe to enhance the safety of an automobile. I hope to be raising venture capital in the near future to allow me to go into production of this device but before I do so I would Like to obtain approval of the DOT or at least to insure that no active disapproval would be forthcoming.

This device is a display integrated into the standard rear grill many production automobiles. The intention of this device is to enchance the normal rear lights on an automobile and to exist in addition to and to not impair the effectiveness but to enchance the normal operating characteristics of the existing rear lights (Motor VehicLe Safety Standard No. 108 - S4.1.3).

The major functions of this device work in conjunction with normal light functions without any additional operator intervention. Some of these functions are:

BRAKE < -> < ---> < -----> BRAKE

RIGHT TURN

LEFT TURN

EMERGENCY FLASHERS

CAUTION

REVERSE BACKING UP

Some sample photographs are enclosed to illustrate these displays. Please feel free to contact me if necessary to insure a positive disposition of this inquiry.

Sincerely,

Lee Jay Mandell President, LJM Associates, Inc.

INSERT GRAPH HERE

INSERT GRAPH HERE

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***