ID: 1982-3.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/27/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: New York City Transit Authority

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald J. Cameron Director - Technical Support New York City Transit Authority 25 Jamaica Avenue Brooklyn, New York 11207

Dear Mr. Cameron:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the driver's side window and the front entrance door window of a bus may be equipped with plastic glazing. You desire to use plastics because of the high operating cost of replacing broken glass windows.

The answer to your question is no. Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, was amended in 1977 to permit the use of rigid plastic glazing in all doors and windows of buses, except windshields or windows to the immediate right or left of the driver(42 FR 61465). The reason for this exception is that windows to the immediate right and left of the driver are necessary for driving visibility and typical plastic material used alone is not sufficiently resistant to abrasion. Plastic glazing would not be allowed in a bus entrance door since this would constitute a "window to the immediate right" of the driver. Plastic glazing would be allowed in the rear emergency door, however, if that door was not necessary for driving visibility.

You also ask whether material other than safety glass may be used in either of these locations. I am not sure that I correctly understand your question. If by "other materials" you mean, for example, sheet metal, the answer to your question would be yes. There are no Federal requirements specifying that a vehicle have windows in a certain location. Thus, theoretically, there would be nothing to preclude the installation of a solid metal entrance door in a bus. (Obviously, no manufacturer would likely do this because it would compromise driver vision.) If, however, there is a window and it is equipped with traditional glazing materials, the glazing must be in compliance with the performance and location requirements of Standard No. 205. If I have misunderstood your last question, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff and he will clarify the requirements for you (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

National Traffic and Highway Safety Administration Department of Transportation Office of the Chief Council 400 Seventh Street South West Washington, D.C. 20590

Greetings:

Reviewed of the Automotive Safety Glazing Materials Standard #205 and the 2-25 document, has caused the Technical Support Department some confusion in its interpretation. Your assistance in clarifying the following points would be greatly appreciated.

Replacement of glass on New York Transit Coaches is a major item in our operating costs. My questions are in regard to the driver's side window (immediate left of driver), and the front entrance door glass. Can either of the above-mentioned items be replaced with plexiglass (plastic)? Can material other than safety glass be used in either of these locations?

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Donald J. Cameron Director - Technical Support

ID: 1982-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/30/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hogan & Hartson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter concerning the application of several Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards to mopeds. You asked whether Standard No. 108 and Standard No. 127 would preempt State statutes or regulations on the same subjects.

Your specific question on Standard No. 127 was whether section 3 of the standard, which excluded mopeds from the coverage of the standard, would preempt State laws that require all motor vehicles operated on the highways to be equipped with a speedometer. Subsequent to your letter, the agency rescinded Standard No. 127 (47 FR 7250). In rescinding the standard, the agency stated that it recognized that there is a nexus between having a speedometer and motor vehicle safety. Based on available information, however, the agency concluded that the specific requirements of the standard concerning the markings on a speedometer, such as the highlighting of the numeral "55", were not yielding and could not be expected to yield significant safety benefits. Because the marking requirements were not yielding safety benefits, the agency stated that it intended that other levels of government be preempted from establishing similar requirements. In preempting States from establishing marking requirements, the agency did not intend to preempt States from enforcing laws or regulations which only require the presence of a speedometer and do not set marking requirements for the speedometer.

Your final question concerned section 4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108, which exempts motor-driven cycles whose speed attainable in one mile is 30 mph or less from the requirement that motor vehicles be equipped with turn signal lamps. You asked if that provision preempts State laws to the extent they require all motor vehicles to be equipped with turn signal lamps. The answer is yes.

In adopting section 4.1.1.26, the agency specifically addressed the issue of what turn signal requirements are necessary and appropriate for mopeds. The agency determined that the speed and weight characteristics of mopeds made the problems associated with hand signaling less significant than they are for larger motorcycles. The agency concluded that exempting mopeds from the turn signal requirement would ease the burden of compliance for moped manufacturers without jeopardizing safety. Since Standard No. 108 specifically addresses the issue of what turn signal requirements are applicable to mopeds, States are preempted from establishing or enforcing a safety standard on that aspect of performance that is not identical to the Federal standard.

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

ID: 1982-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/12/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: U. S. Postal Service

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 12, 1982 NOA-30

Mr. Darnley M. Howard Director, Office of Safety and Health United States Postal Service 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20260

Dear Mr. Howard:

This responds to your August 18 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, regarding the use of cross-view mirrors on certain Postal Service vehicles. These mirrors are convex and have a non-uniform radius of curvature. They would be used to assist drivers in viewing the area immediately in front of the vehicle.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 sets forth rear view mirror requirements for new motor vehicles. Vehicles such as Postal Service trucks are required to comply with one of three specified alternative sets of requirements for mirror systems. The first alternative requires a plane inside mirror providing a specified field of view and a plane exterior driver side mirror, also providing a specified field of view. The second alternative is the same as the first, except that it permits the interior mirror to have a more narrow field of view as long as the vehicle also uses an exterior mirror on the passenger side. The third alternative requires two plane exterior mirrors of at least 19.5 square inches surface area each, with one placed on the driver's side and the other on the passenger's side of the vehicle.

The agency has taken the position that mirrors used on a vehicle in addition to the required mirrors are not subject to any requirements of FMVSS 111. If the cross-view mirrors you wish to use would supplement mirrors which fully comply with one of the alternatives in the standard, the installation of the cross-view mirrors on new Postal Service trucks is in no way prohibited by our standard.

Further, our requirements do not apply to aftermarket modifications to the original equipment mirror system, when those modifications are performed by the vehicle owner. Modifications to the required system would be deemed unlawful only if done by vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses. Thus, the use of the cross-view mirrors is permissible in any case, so long as one of these designated businesses does not Perform the modification. However, we recommend that the cross-view mirror be used in addition to the original equipment mirrors, and not as a substitute for those mirrors. Based on our experience with non-uniform radius mirrors, these mirrors should not be used when the vehicle is in motion, since the mirror produces an image which can distort distances. Rather, the mirror should be used to detect people in front of the vehicle while the vehicle is stopped.

NHTSA would appreciate the opportunity to review the results of your test program once it is completed. If we can be of assistance to you in evaluating the mirrors, please, feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 18, 1982

Mr. Roger Fairchild Legal Counsel - Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 111 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - Room 5219 U.S. Department of Transportation 400-7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The U.S. Postal Service is considering the testing of an "eyeball" type mirror on certain postal vehicles to provide the driver with a view of the area immediately in front of the vehicle. Currently, for this purpose, we are using convex mirrors, which meet Federal requirements.

The "eyeball" mirror has a nonuniform radius of curvature and, as such, may be in violation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 111. We understand, however, that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is considering a revision to the standard which would eliminate a design restriction and allow the use of mirrors that do not have a uniform radius of curvature.

Since we wish to fully comply with the NHTSA standards and also evaluate methods that may enhance our efforts to prevent accidents involving children, we are seeking U.S. Department of Transportation approval to allow the Postal Service to conduct a limited test of the "eyeball" type mirror. Approximately 10 postal vehicles would be involved and would include the use of the K-10 "Eyeball" Truck/Bus Mirror, manufactured by K-10 Enterprises Incorporated of Mission, Texas, or an equivalent mirror. Information concerning the K-10 mirror is enclosed for your review and consideration.

The matter has been previously discussed with Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA. Mr. Cavey was most helpful and suggested we address our inquiry to your office.

Should you need additional information, please feel free to call Mr. Jerry A. Jones, General Manager, Safety Compliance Division, Office of Safety and Health, at 245-4686.

Sincerely,

Darnley M. Howard Director, Office of Safety and Health Employee Relations Department

Enclosure

ID: 1982-3.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Isuzu Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, Michigan 48076

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock and Transmissions Braking Effect. You asked whether a 5-speed automatic transmission which you are considering producing meets the requirement of section S3.1.1 that a neutral position be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. Therefore, the following statements only represent the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

In reference to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the relevant question is whether, in accordance with the above requirement, there is a neutral position between the HD (highway drive) and R (reverse) positions. As explained below, it is our opinion that the answer to that question is yes.

Your letter states that "the transmission is neutral whenever the shift lever is at any place on the horizontal line (including its left and right extreme ends) at the center of which the mark 'N' is shown." Further, your letter indicates that "the shift lever is spring-loaded to return to the center of the horizontal line ('N' position) whenever the lever is left free on that line."

In shifting between HD and R, the lever must cross the horizontal line. We understand that if the lever is merely held on the horizontal line at the crossing point, i.e., the extreme right, the transmission will be in neutral.

Further, we understand that if the lever is left free in that position, it will return to the center of the horizontal line where it will remain in neutral. Based on these two understandings, it is our opinion that the extreme right crossing point constitutes a neutral position between the HD and R positions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

DET82-134

May 18, 1982

Mr. George L. Parker Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Parker,

This letter is intended to seek your advice on the interpretation of the requirement in FMVSS 102 on the location of automatic transmission shift lever positions.

Show in the attached sheet is the shift lever pattern of a 5-speed automatic transmission we are planning to use on our passenger car. As far as you see on the pattern, it looks one can shift from "HD" (highway drive) to "R" or vice versa without passing a neutral position. But the fact is that the transmission is neutral whenever the shift lever is at any place on the horizontal line (including its left and right extreme ends) at the center of which the mark "N" is shown. Therefore, we think arrangement meets the requirement of FMVSS 102, S3.1.1 which says: "A neutral position shall be located between forward drive and reverse drive positions."

For additional information, the shift lever is spring-loaded to return to the center of the horizontal line ("N" position) whenever the lever is left free on that line. The lever can be moved from "HD" to "R" and vice versa at any time but a built-in transmission control unit works to prevent gear engagement unless the vehicle speed is suitable for the intended shift.

We would like to receive NHTSA's interpretation about the compliance of this system with FMVSS 102. Your prompt attention to this matter would be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

ID: 19824.ztv

Mr. Ralph F. Ivey
45 East Oak Street
Willlits, CA 95490

Dear Mr. Ivey:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1999, to Taylor Vinson of this Office asking whether Acting Chief Counsel Womack's interpretation of February 20, 1997, addressed to Brian Kimmel and regarding the Rotary Zodiac (RZ) motorized bicycle, applies to your unit, which has a smaller cubic capacity engine of 33cc.

We are frequently asked whether a bicycle equipped with a power assist is a "motor vehicle" subject to our jurisdiction, or simply a bicycle, regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. We answer this question by examining the extent to which the power source assists the operator. Our letter to Mr. Kimmel (as is the case with all our interpretations) was based on the information that he presented to us in his request, and not on our actual inspection of or experience with the RZ. On this basis, we informed Mr. Kimmel that the RZ was not a "motor vehicle" as defined for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This opinion was not based on the cubic capacity of the power source, but on the conditions under which power was supplied. As we understood it, the power supplied by the RZ's motor assisted the bicycle operator in certain driving conditions, but was insufficient to propel the bicycle alone in the absence of muscular input by the operator. In other words, if the operator stops pedaling, the RZ will come to a halt.

You have enclosed a photocopy of an ad by Acimex USA, Inc., for a "bicycle assist." This appears to be aftermarket equipment for installation by the bike owner, consisting of a motor and a handlebar mounted throttle. When installed, the maximum speed of the bicycle is 40 km/h. The ad indicates that the unit "starts automatically and still allows normal pedaling."

Upon our review of this ad, we have concluded that a bicycle equipped with the Acimex system is a "motor vehicle." We further conclude that it is a "motorcycle" and that the person installing the motor is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle complies with all applicable Federal requirements.

Specifically, the Acimex system appears designed for full-time operation. Further, the fact that the system will "still allow pedaling" indicates that it is intended to propel the vehicle in the absence of muscular input by the operator. In other words, it appears that it is the operator who assists the power unit rather than the opposite. Under these circumstances, the bicycle will become a "motor vehicle" when the owner installs the Acimex system. It is a violation of 49 U.S.C. 30112(a) for any person to introduce a motor vehicle into interstate commerce unless it conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The standards that appear to apply to an Acimex-equipped bicycle are those for "motorcycles," and "motor driven cycles," a subcategory of motorcycle. We regard the initial operation of a motor vehicle on the public streets as an introduction into interstate commerce.

If you have any further questions, you may call Taylor Vinson at 202-366-5263.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:571
d.6/10/99

ID: 19825-1.pja

Jason Backs, Vice President
Travis Body and Trailer
13955 F.M.. 529
Houston, TX 77041

Dear Mr. Backs:

This responds to your letter asking whether a flexible rear apron on the rear of a trailer that your company is interested in building constitutes a "nonstructural protrusion" within the meaning of our rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Our answer is no.

You provided a drawing and a description of a trailer your company is thinking about manufacturing. The steel body of this trailer extends eight inches behind the rear most point of the rear tires. However, bolted on to the rear of the steel body is a flexible rear apron extending 27 inches behind the rearmost point of the rearmost tires. The apron's purpose is to support asphalt as it is transferred backward out of the trailer body and into a paving machine. You state that the apron could be composed of inch thick plastic. You state that the apron would be "substantial enough to support the asphalt load, yet would be extremely flexible in a rear impact." As explained below, the flexible rear apron would not be considered a nonstructural protrusion.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers with a gross vehicle weight rating of over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with an underride guard complying with Standard No. 223. Paragraph S5.1.3 of the standard specifies that "the rearmost surface of the horizontal member of the guard shall be located as close as practical to a transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle, but no more than 305 mm [about 12 inches] forward of that plane." S4 defines the rearmost extremity, in pertinent part, as

the rearmost point on a vehicle that is . . . below a horizontal plane located 1,900 mm above the ground . . . when the vehicle's cargo doors, tailgate, and other permanent structures are positioned as they normally are when the vehicle is in motion. Nonstructural protrusions such as taillights, rubber bumpers, hinges and latches are excluded from the determination of the rearmost point.

Merely because something is attached to the body does not mean that an object is nonstructural. The definition of rear extremity refers to the "rearmost point on the vehicle" (emphasis added), not the rearmost point of the chassis, or the rearmost point of the steel structure. The attributes that the examples of nonstructural protrusions listed in S5.1.3 have in common are that they are relatively small and localized and would not have a major impact on a colliding passenger vehicle.

We do not consider your apron design to be nonstructural. We have previously determined that "[a] 0.19 inch thick aluminum (or 7 gauge steel) [deflector] plate extending across the entire width of the trailer is part of the vehicle, and is not a "nonstructural protrusion." ⁽¹⁾ We believe that your proposed plastic apron is indistinguishable from a deflector plate, for the purposes of the regulation. As with the deflector plate, your apron is rigidly attached to the rear of the trailer. It seems to wrap around the tailgate, so it is probably full-width and could not be considered relatively small or localized. The distinction that you seem to be urging upon us, that an apron constructed of inch thick plastic is more flexible than steel and thus not harmful if impacted by a colliding vehicle, is not likely to be true in most highway crashes. Plastics can vary greatly in their rigidity and strength. If your flexible rear apron did not contact any metal structure of the colliding passenger vehicle but instead penetrated the windshield, it could be harmful if its lower edge struck the head or neck of the front seat occupants as they are thrown forward by the force of the crash. We conclude that the rear edge of the apron would be considered the rear extremity of the vehicle, and an underride guard would have to be mounted no more than 12 inches forward from it.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
ref:224
d.10/7/99

1. Letter of October 20, 1997 to Mr. Michael L. Ulsh. That letter addressed a similar situation in which a full width deflector plate helped to transfer the trailer's load outboard from the vehicle.

ID: 1982y

Mr. Russell Storms
Luke Grimm
2140 SW Pallatwe Street
Portland, Oregon 97219

Dear Mr. Storms:

This responds to your letter asking that this Department "approve" or otherwise "recognize" your newly invented warning device. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you described your invention as a seven inch high, tetrahedral reflective traffic marker that is non-flammable and easily stored. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our law and regulations to you.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.; the Safety Act) gives this agency the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. We have exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 125, Warning Devices (49 CFR 571.125; copy enclosed). This standard specifies performance requirements and test procedures for warning devices that are designed to be carried in motor vehicles and used to warn approaching traffic of a stopped vehicle. Based on the description in your letter, your newly invented product appears to be a warning device subject to Standard No. 125.

When the agency has issued an applicable safety standard, section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) provides that no person shall "manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States" any new motor vehicle or new item of equipment unless the vehicles or equipment are in conformity with the applicable standard. Assuming your product is subject to Standard No. 125, it must conform to all the requirements of that standard.

You are not required to get some "approval" or "recognition" from this agency before selling this product. In fact, NHTSA has no authority under the Safety Act to approve, certify, or otherwise endorse any commercial product. Instead, section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) establishes a self-certification process under which every manufacturer is required to certify that each of its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Therefore, the manufacturer of this new product must certify that it conforms to all applicable standards. Section 108(b)(2) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)) requires the manufacturer of this new warning device to exercise "due care" in certifying that it conforms to Standard No. 125. To comply with these legal obligations, I suggest that you carefully examine the requirements of Standard No. 125 and determine if this new product conforms with those requirements. As you will see, Standard No. 125 contains specific requirements related to a warning device's material, container, labeling, configuration, color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability. In particular, you should be aware that section S5.2.2 of the standard requires that:

each of the three sides of the triangular portion of the warning device shall not be less than 17 and not more than 22 inches long, and not less than 2 inches and not more than 3 inches wide.

Your letter states that your new warning device is seven inches in height. If that is the case, the new warning device would not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 125. You should further compare your proposed design with the other requirements in Standard No. 125 to determine if your new warning device complies with all of the other provisions.

You should be aware that the Vehicle Safety Act establishes a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with any applicable safety standards.

If you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:125#VSA d:8/l7/89

ID: 1983-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/83 EST.

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Richard R. Kelm -- Manager of Automotive Glass Replacement Services, Libby-Ownes - Ford Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 24, 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 replacements 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 226 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 specified 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.

Original Signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-1.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/28/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 15, 1982 letter regarding the applicability of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, to two proposed cowl designs.

FMVSS 219 provides that no part of a vehicle outside the occupant compartment, "except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," may penetrate a specified protected zone template on the windshield during a vehicle test crash. In your letter, you present two possible vehicle designs in which the cowl would directly contact the windshield. In one design, the contact would occur across most of the width of the windshield, while in the other, the contact occurs only at the outside edges of the cowl.

Both designs appear to fall within the exception in the standard for components "designed to be normally in contact with the windshield," and therefore the cowl would be permitted to penetrate the protected zone template. Nevertheless, I should mention that your second design does raise some concerns. It is difficult to determine from the drawings enclosed with your letter the extent of the windshield-cowl contact in your second design. If this contact were for such a short distance that it would be apparent that the design was intended to circumvent FMVSS 219 by establishing only minimal contact, the agency would consider taking appropriate action to assure that the intent of the standard is carried out.

SINCERELY,

MAZDA (NORTH AMERICA), INC. Detroit Office

November 15, 1982

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda respectfully submits this letter to request an interpretation of the requirements (S5.) of FMVSS 219, Winshield Zone Intrusion. The requirement states, ". . . . .No part of the vehicle outside the occupant compartment, except windshield molding and other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield, . . . . . . . . . . ."

Mazda is developing a new model in which the cowl, by design, contacts the lower portion of the windshield. There are two designs being considered, as shown in the attached sketches.

According to our interpretation of the standard, the cowl would be part of "other components designed to be normally in contact with the windshield".

We would appreciate your interpretation with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

H. Nakaya Manager

CASE I - Complete contact with windshield

Windshield

CASE II - Partial contact with windshield (contact at left and right side)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 1983-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 31, 1983

FROM: BINICHI DOI -- NSK

TO: ROBERT NELSON -- NHTSA

TITLE: SAFETY BELT RETRACTORS

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 7-7-83 TO BINICHI DOI FROM FRANK BERNDT, REDBOOK A24, NOA-30

TEXT: On January 12th, I asked you this question and was told to submit the question in writing.

This question is from NSK-Warner K.K. of Japan which is one of the safety belt manufacturers of Japan and for which I work as its representative in North America.

Attached sketches are: 1. One type of adjust tongue installed in Japanese automobiles; 2. Another type of same; 3. GM's tongue called "One way friction D ring". The second sheet shows the general arrangement of our seat belt system.

Our question is as follows:

Is it required by regulation(s) that a safety belt system with tension reliever (such as GM's window shade type) should have adjust tongue of Type 3 of attached sketches (one way locking)?

Your kind attention to this inquiry will be appreciated by us.

Attachments