Interpretation ID: nht75-2.33

DATE: 09/30/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Tokio Iinuma

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 27, 1975, requesting an interpretation of Standard No. 219 with respect to certain of your test results.

The primary purpose of Standard No. 219 is to protect vehicle occupants from impact with vehicle parts that have penetrated into the passenger compartment through the windshield during a crash. The inner surface of the windshield is the area of interface between the windshield and the passenger compartment. Therefore, the standard is designed to ensure that nothing penetrates into the passenger compartment by precluding penetration of the inner surface of the windshield below the protected zone in a crash test.

In Case 1, although the windshield below the protected zone was cracked, nothing penetrated the inner surface of the windshield. Therefore, it would appear that the windshield is in compliance with S5 of Standard No. 219.

Similarly, in Case 2, it appears that the object did not penetrate the inner surface of the windshield, although the windshield was deformed. Therefore, it would appear that the vehicle is also in compliance.

We hope this information is of assistance. Please contact us if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

August 27, 1975

Frank Berndt Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 219: Windshield Zone Intrusion

This is to request your interpretation of FMVSS 219; S.5 which states, "no such part of a vehicle shall penetrate the inner surface of that portion of the windshield below the protected zone defined in S.6"

Something hit against the portion of the windshield below the protected zone and cracked it in the following cases:

Case 1. As the deformation of the glass was very little, it could not be observed even in the movie analysis. However, the shock was enough to crack the glass.

Case 22. The deformation of the glass could be observed visibly, but the film between glasses was not broken and nothing went through the windshield.

That is, the object did not get in touch with the air in the occupant compartment.

May we understand that the tested vehicles in the above two cases are in compliance with the requirement respectively?

Thank you for your attention to the above request. We look forward to hearing your interpretation of the above.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Tokio Iinuma

Staff, Safety