ID: nht79-2.30

DATE: 09/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Co., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 1979

Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President United States Testing Co., Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements applicable to automatic seat belts under Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you ask for confirmation that all automatic belts must comply with the adjustment specifications of paragraph S7.1 of the standard.

Your understanding is correct. Automatic seat belts must meet the adjustment requirements of pargaraph S7.1, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference, whether or not they are required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of the standard. Automatic belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other parts of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 23, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Washington, D.C. 20590 Reference: Your letter dated July 17, 1978 to Mr. George C. Nield, President, Automobile Importers of America - NOA-30.

Dear Mr. Levin:

I have this date, received a copy of your letter, referenced above, concerning the testing of passive seat belt assemblies to FMVSS No. 208 or 209 requirements. I feel that your letter may need some clarification or I need some further interpretation.

The question posed was pertaining to para. S4.5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 208. Your answer to that question was yes, that seat belt passive systems are exempt from FMVSS No. 209 testing with the exception of those that are not required to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements.

My interpretation of the Standard is that the aforementioned paragraph replaces only the assembly performance requirements of FMVSS No. 209, which is a Static Test, with the Dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 208.

Paragraph S4.5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 208 states that the passive belt assembly must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 for retractor performance (para. S7.1 Adjustment). Therefore, all passive belt systems whether or not they are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements must conform to paragraph S7.1 (S4.5.3.3) of FMVSS No. 208. If my interpretation is not correct, then a retractor which will encounter more usage in a passive belt system, does not have to be tested for endurance per FMVSS No. 209 (i.e. resistance to environments, cycling and retraction force); but an active belt system which sees far less use, must meet those same 209 tests.

In view of testing programs presently in progress for several manufacturers an early reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division

FP:mg

ID: nht79-2.31

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Brooks - H. O. R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 11 1979

NOA-30

Honorable Jack Brooks House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your note we received on August 29 enclosing correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Don Bush. Mr. Bush requests information concerning passive seat belts on a 1977 Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, he was told by the Society of Automotive Engineers that there are currently no standards for this type of restraint system.

The information given Mr. Bush by the Society of Automotive Engineers was incorrect. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies requirements for restraint systems in passenger cars and other vehicles (49 CFR 571.208). For 1977-model passenger cars manufacturers had three options: (1) total passive protection (protection by means that require no action by vehicle occupants); (2) head-on passive protection; (3) the installation of combination lap and shoulder belts for front, outboard seating positions and lap belts for center and rear seating positions.

Volkswagen apparently certified its 1977-model deluxe Rabbit under the second option of the standard. This option requires the vehicle to meet specified injury criteria in a perpendicular barrier crash test, and to either meet lateral and rollover criteria in dynamic impact tests by automatic means or to install lap belts at front, outboard seating positions. Volkswagen used a single, diagonal passive belt to comply with the automatic frontal crash protection requirement of the second option. Additionally, paragraph S4.5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208 allows a passive belt to be used in lieu of any other belt required by any option of the standard. Therefore, Volkswagen's single, diagonal passive belt also qualifies as a lap belt for purposes of complying with the lateral and rollover requirements of the second option.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 208 for Mr. Bush's information. Please have him contact Hugh Oates of my office if he has any questions after reviewing the standard (202-426-2992). Mr. Bush might also note that General Motors voluntarily installed an active lap belt in its Chevettes that have passive shoulder belts (these vehicles were introduced in the spring of this year). Active lap belts in these vehicles are not required by the standard, however.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures Constituent's Letter Standard No. 208

March 28, 1979

The Honorable Jack Brooks United States Representative District 9, State of Texas 2419 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515

Re: 1977 Volkswagon Rabbit passive shoulder belt restraint system

Dear Mr. Brooks:

I represent a young man who received serious head injuries in a traffic collision in which he was driving the vehicle in question. During the collision, our client was thrown against the door, the door flew open and our client was thrown out of the vehicle. We are of the opinion that the injuries were caused due to a defectively manufactured or designed passive restraint seat belt system.

We are in the process of gathering information so we can evaluate whether or not a law suit is appropriate. Today we contacted the Society of Automotive Engineers. The young man we spoke with told us that there are currently no standards for this type of passive restraint system. He did advise that there is at least one piece of legislation in Congress which deals with establishing such standards.

I would appreciate any help you could provide in the way of identifying, providing copies of or providing the names and addresses of someone who can advise me of the status of this legislation. I would also appreciate you referring me to any other individual or agency there in Washington who might be able to provide me with pertinent information.

Thanking you for your help in this matter, I am

Very truly yours,

Don Bush

DB/pw

ID: nht79-2.32

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

OCT 15 1979

NOA-30

Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division United States Testing Company, Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the testing procedures specified in Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Specifically, you ask about the proper sequence of requirements and testing procedures provided in paragraphs S4.3(j), S4.3(k), S5.2(j) and S5.2(k).

Paragraph S4.3(j) provides that a retractor must meet certain requirements when tested in accordance with S5.2(j). Compliance with this paragraph should be determined initially. Then, paragraph S4.3(k) provides that the same retractor must be able to comply with paragraph S4.3(j) after being tested in accordance with S5.2(k), except that the retraction force is only required to be 50 percent of its original value. This original value was determined, of course, during the compliance procedure of S5.2(j). Therefore, the first interpretation included in your letter is correct.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 22, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies, Interpretation Emergency Locking Retractor, Test Sequence

Dear Mr. Levin:

Several manufacturers have raised questions pertaining to the testing of Emergency Locking Retractors in accordance with FMVSS No. 209. The specific paragraphs in question are S4.3 (j), S4.3 (k), S5.2 (j) and S5.2 (k).

One interpretation of the standard is as follows:

S4.3 (j) and (k) are Requirement paragraphs and S5.2 (j) and (k) are Demonstration paragraphs. Keeping this in mind, it appears that S4.3 (j) requires an Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) to be tested for lock up distance and retraction force in accordance with the procedures of S5.2 (j) in the "as received" condition. Paragraph S4.3 (k) requires an ELR to be tested for performance (environmental conditioning and cycling) in accordance with S5.2 (k) and then again comply with S4.3 (j) and also with paragraph S4.4.

Another interpretation is that paragraph S4.3 (j) and (k) specify the requirements for an ELR and paragraph S5.2 (j) indicates what to test and S5.2 (k) specifies when to test for conformance with S4.3 (j) and (k). Therefore, retraction force measurements are made prior to performing the cycling testing. After cycling, lock-up distance and final retraction force are measured.

I would appreciate your prompt review of the above interpretation and your opinions as to which is the proper meaning and intent of FMVSS No. 209.

Very truly yours,

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division

FP:mg

ID: nht79-2.33

DATE: 12/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ward Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 7 1979

Mr. E. M. Ryan Ward Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 849 Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

Dear Mr. Ryan:

This responds to your October 8, 1979, letter asking whether your new bus design will comply with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. The window exit that you plan to install in the bus would slide open rather than push out and would be operated by a squeeze-type force application that is parallel to the horizontal centerline of the bus.

Standard No. 217 requires buses to be equipped with emergency exits that comply with a variety of requirements. In the case of window exits, the force application for opening them depends upon the location of the release mechanism. For example, the required force application in the high force access region, according to the standard (S5.3.2), is straight and perpendicular to the exit surface.

In applying the above requirement to your vehicle, it appears that your bus would not comply with the standard. From the pictures that you enclosed with your letter, it appears that your release mechanism falls in the high force access region. If so, the force application for opening the exit is in the incorrect direction as specified by the standard. Further, your bus would use window exits that slide open rather than push out. Although, sliding emergency exits are not prohibited by the standard, they must comply with all of the standard's requirements. Also, they must be capable of complying when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. The agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits, because they are less likely to "bind up" during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.

The standard was written in its present form to provide uniformity of emergency exits in buses. A uniform exit system can help prevent confusion during accidents and facilitate emergency exit of vehicles. The vehicle that you plan to build would be unlike other buses now in operation with respect to emergency exits. The NHTSA does not think that this would be desirable or in the interest of safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 8, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admn. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: FMVSS 217 "Bus Window Retention and Release" Paragraph S5.3 and S5.4

Dear Sir:

Ward Industries proposes to incorporate in a new bus design an emergency exit described as a horizontal sliding type. The window consists of two sliding sections, one of which opens large enough to admit unobstructed passage of an ellipsoid as required and described in Paragraph S5.4.1.

The sliding section of this window slides fore and aft and parallel to the longitudinal center line of the bus. The window is not hinged at the top and does not swing out or "push out." It appears that the suggested type of emergency exit would comply with the requirements of FMVSS 217, Paragraph S5.4.1. Will this type of action be acceptable?

The latching mechanism consists of a single latch which holds the sliding section in position. (See enclosed photos.) The release mechanism requires for release a squeeze type application to open. The force application for release is aft and parallel to the horizontal centerline of the bus. Will this type of release mechanism be acceptable?

We would appreciate very much an early reply. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

E. M. Ryan, Specifications Engineering Mgr.

EMR/ws

Enclosures

ID: nht79-2.34

DATE: 02/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: United Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 2 1979

NOA-30

Mr. Melvin Ives President United Bus Sales, Inc. 6700 S. Garfield Avenue Bell Gardens, California 90201

Dear Mr. Ives:

This responds to your November 6, 1978, letter asking for an interpretation of the warning buzzer requirement of Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release.

The standard requires a warning buzzer to sound when an emergency door release mechanism is not in the closed position and the vehicle's ignition is on. From conversations with you and our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, we have determined that your rear emergency door uses a warning buzzer that sounds when the door release mechanism is not in the closed position unless someone continues to exert pressure to hold the door closed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers such a warning device to be in compliance with the standard. The purpose of the warning alarm is to warn passengers and the driver when a door is accidentally left in the open condition while the vehicle ignition is in the on position. Your device appears to meet the intent of the standard.

We have discussed this issue with Mr. Jerry Alexander of the California Highway Patrol, and he has indicated that he will accept our determination. We are sending him a copy of this letter for his information.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel cc: Mr. Jerry Alexander P.O. Box 11730 Fresno, California 93775

November 6, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 West 7th Street Southwest Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Chief Counsel

Gentlemen:

It has been suggested by the Commercial Vehicle Section of the Highway Patrol, State of California, that we ask you for a legal interpertation of Federal Standard, Part 571; S-217, Section S5.3.3 (C) pertaining to the position of the release mechanism and the sounding of the warning buzzer.

Specifically:

"When the release mechanism is not in the closed position, and the vehicle ignition is in the "on" position, a continuous warning sound shall be audible--------."

It is our feeling that our van-type school buses comply. It would, however, be most helpful if we could have an interpretation of the above quoted section for clarification. Mr. George Shifflett, your Compliance Specialist, has visited our plant and is familiar with the details of our units and our request and has been most helpful to us.

Sincerely,

UNITED BUS SALES, INC.

Melvin Ives President

MV/daw

cc: Zemaitis, Joseph Shifflett, George Campoy, Cliff Canova, Andy 02/02/79

ID: nht79-2.35

DATE: 09/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 12 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. M. Premo, Director Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima, Ohio 45804

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your August 27, 1979, letter asking how the agency tests a floor joint for compliance with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. You enclosed a sketch and sample floor joint with your letter and asked in which direction the forces would be applied for test purposes. You suggested that the forces be applied in a perpendicular direction to the floor.

The floor joint that you manufacture is welded in three locations. One weld is located on top of the floor surface and joins the two panels together. The agency concludes that this joint should be tested by applying force in a direction that is parallel to the floor surface, not perpendicular to it. This is the procedure that is specified in section S6 of the standard for testing joints that are constructed in a manner similar to the floor joint in your vehicle.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 27, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel U. S. Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Roger Tilton

Dear Mr. Tilton:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain an interpretation of the testing procedure that will be used to check the underbody joints shown in proposal number 2.

It is our interpretation of FMVSS 221 that both joints, floor panel to crossmember and floor panel to floor panel, would be tested in the direction of the arrows shown on the enclosed proposal.

An early reply will be appreciated.

Very truly yours,

R. M. Premo, Director Vehicle Safety Activities

RMP:cr Enclosure

ID: nht79-2.36

DATE: 11/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/4/91 letter from Paul J. Rice to Richard Cahalan (A37; Part 567); Also attached to 8/20/90 letter from Oscar W. Harrell, Jr. to NHTSA Office of the Chief Counsel (OCC 5073); Also attached to 7/25/90 letter from George C. Shifflett to Oscar Harell (Harrell) Jr.; Also attached to 9/4/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Vincent Foster

TEXT:

November 26, 1979

Mr. W. G. Milby Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your October 3, 1979 letter asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to permit the production of a limited number of school buses that do not comply with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. The buses would be designed to transport severely handicapped students.

As you know, Standard No. 222 permits side-facing seats for handicapped students. However, the standard does not permit other variations of seating for the transportation of the handicapped. The agency's notice of July 12, 1976 (41 FR 28506) specifically limited its action with respect to handicapped student transportation to the provision of side-facing seats.

In your letter, you state that you intend to have forward and rearward facing seats surrounded by a cubicle to restrain children that are severely handicapped. Since only side-facing seats are acceptable as a variation from the standard's required seating, the standard cannot be interpreted in such manner that would permit the type of seats that you propose to install in your bus. Further, according to our regulation governing exemptions from the safety standards, it would appear that you would not qualify under any of the criteria that have been established. Therefore, it would not be useful to seek an exemption or waiver from the standards.

The agency has been confronted with the special problems for the handicapped many times and in a variety of vehicles. The NHTSA realizes the special needs of these individuals and further understands that these needs require the agency to be flexible in the enforcement of standards applicable to vehicles used by the handicapped. As a result the agency has stated in the past, that it will overlook some noncompliances in vehicles that are serving the special needs of the handicapped. The agency concludes that compliance with Standard No. 222 will not be enforced in certain circumstances for buses designed to transport the handicapped.

The above exemption from enforcement of compliance with Standard No. 222 is limited. The seating in such special buses must be distinctly different from that of typical school buses. For example, your placement of the seats in cubicles would provide such a distinction from normal school bus seats. The mere increase of seat spacing with the use of traditional school bus seats, on the other hand, would not qualify for freedom from compliance with the standard. With respect to your bus, the agency concludes that all other passenger seats beyond these constructed in the cubicles must comply with the standard. The agency further notes that the use of this type of bus is appropriate only for the most extreme cases of handicapped transportation and is not necessary for the transportation of all handicapped school children.

Although it would not be required by regulation, manufacturers should label these unique buses for the handicapped in some manner that will identify them as appropriate only for the transportation of handicapped students and not as a regular school bus. Such a label would be important in alerting both the Federal and State government officials to the fact that this is not a regular school bus and thus might be subject to different considerations with respect to the enforcement of compliance with safety standards. You should also check with State officials to ensure that they will permit the use of such buses.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 3, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Transportation Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590

REF: Telephone conversations of October 2, 1979, with Mr. Roger Tilton and Mr. Taylor Vinson

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Public Law 94-142 is precipitating requests for specially built buses to transport handicapped passengers. Some of these buses, because of their special needs, cannot meet certain Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

We currently have a request to build two buses which are described by the enclosed sketch. These buses would have plexiglass shields in the front to protect the driver and special seating cubicles in the center portion of the bus with back to back seating and padded walls. These seats would also be equipped with seat belts. In the rear of the bus would be seating provisions for a matron and also a cabinet sink to be used for cleaning and caring for passengers who do not have control of bodily functions.

Our immediate need is to get an interpretation for these two buses which would render them to be in compliance with FMVSS 222. We feel the intent of this interpretation is established in paragraph S4 of FMVSS 222 wherein an exemption is provided for seating to accommodate handicapped or convalescent passengers.

Beyond the immediate need for these two buses there is a long range need to provide more flexibility for FMVSS exemptions or waivers for buses built to accommodate passengers which will be transported under the provisions of Public Law 94-142.

We will appreciate your early response to this immediate need and your comments concerning what action might be appropriate in handling more requests of this nature.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht79-2.37

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 22, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P.O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your November 29, 1978, letter asking several questions about test procedures conducted in accordance with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Your questions concern the impact and contact area test requirements of the standard.

First, you suggest that the head and knee impact tests should be conducted with only one impact allowed per seat back. The standard states in S5.3.1: "A surface area that has been contacted pursuant to an impact test need not meet further requirements contained in S5.3." You apparently interpret "surface area" to mean an entire seat back.

The purpose of the above-cited sentence in S5.3.1 is to assure manufacturers that the agency will not hit the test seat in the identical spot twice during compliance testing. However, it is permissible for several tests to be run on a seat as long as the test device does not impact the same specific area previously contacted by the device in an earlier test. This test method is appropriate because it approximates accident conditions. A seat is likely to be impacted more than once in an accident when the seat immediately behind it is occupied by three passengers. Accordingly, the agency will continue to run multiple tests on a seat back but will never impact the same "surface area" more than once.

In your second question, you suggest that a test sequence is appropriate for contact area testing. The agency disagrees. The agency agrees that the head form and knee form impact tests are different tests for the reasons outlined in your letter. However, nothing in those reasons compels the agency to conclude that a test sequence would be appropriate for contact area testing. In an accident, the impact of children on a seat back may or may not be sequential in nature.

Therefore, the existing test method, which permits the agency to sequence tests in any manner, closely reflects actual accident experiences. Accordingly, the agency will not adopt a specific sequence in its test procedures.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

November 29, 1978

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

SUBJECT: FMVSS 222

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this letter is to seek an interpretation regarding the sequence of testing required by FMVSS 222.

The testing sequence is important because many of the tests required by the subject standard have an interactive effect.

It is obvious that bus seats are an expendable item in a collision. This is attested to by the destructive nature of the requirements of the subject standard.

The head and knee impact requirements of the subject standard are both destructive in nature, and both have interactive effects not only with respect to each other, but also with respect to subsequent impacts within the head requirements or subsequent impacts within the knee requirements.

Because of the interactive effect of these requirements, not only on the immediate contact area, but also the surrounding area, it is not appropriate to conclude that a non compliance exists based on multiple impacts on any given seat. We believe this issue is addressed by S 5.3.1 which states "...a surface area which has been contacted pursuant to an impact test need not meet further requirements contained in S 5.3". It is further addressed by S 5.3.2.2. This section states "When any point ... is impacted...". (Emphasis added). We interpret this singular language to indicate that for compliance test purposes, only one point should be impacted on any given seat. We therefore seek your confirmation of this interpretation.

It should be noted here, as a practical matter, that multiple impacts on a particular seat are appropriate so long as the resulting data do not indicate a non compliance. This is so because multiple impacts on a particular seat constitute a worst case approach; if the seat passes under these circumstances, then it can be assumed it passes if only one impact per seat is made. However, if an indicated non compliance is encountered, it must be verified by impacting a virgin seat in the same location.

The second issue relating to testing sequence is the 3 in2 contact area requirement vs. the HIC and Force Distribution requirements with the head and maximum force requirements with the knee. We interpret the contact area requirements to be distinctly different tests for both the head and the knee for two reasons:

1. S 5.3.1.2 and S 5.3.1.3 require different velocities for the two tests, and

2. S 6.8 requires that the head form, knee form and contactable surfaces must be clean and dry during impact testing.

We therefore seek your confirmation of this interpretation also.

The importance of these issues was raised recently during compliance testing now being conducted by NHTSA at Mobility Systems laboratories. We urge you to resolve these issues by interpretation prior to the issuance of the FMVSS 222 compliance test report on the Blue Bird All American bus currently at Mobility Systems.

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

sw

ID: nht79-2.39

DATE: 06/20/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. H. Latshaw, Jr., Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1979, to John Womack of this office on behalf of your client Ennova, Inc. Ennova wishes to market a "back rack carrier", and you have asked several questions with respect to its legality under Federal requirements. The photographs which you enclosed show that the carrier structure is attached to both the front and rear bumpers, and that loads may be carried on the top of the vehicle as well as on a shelf directly behind the vehicle's rear bumper.

Your questions and our answers are:

"1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?"

An equipment carrier that attaches to a motor vehicle is an item of "motor vehicle equipment" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(4), and your client is a "manufacturer" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(5). There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that cover this type of motor vehicle equipment, and, therefore, a State is not preempted by 15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) from prescribing its own safety standards for it. If a safety related defect were discovered in the "Back Rack", Ennova would be responsible for notification and remedy of it, as required by 15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq.

"3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any Federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? Is so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment."

Your questions concern our jurisdiction over a vehicle before and after its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale. A dealer has the responsibility to deliver to its owner a new vehicle in full compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 prohibits the installation of any "additional lamp, reflective device, or other motor vehicle equipment . . . that impairs the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by this standard." Paragraph S4.3.1 requires that "no part of the vehicle shall prevent a parking lamp, taillamp, stop lamp, turn signal lamp, or backup lamp from meeting its photometric output at any applicable group of test points specified in Figures 1 and 3 [Standard No. 108], or prevent any other lamp from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable "SAE Standard on Recommended Practice". Therefore, a dealer could not deliver a new car with the Back Rack installed if it impairs the effectiveness of the car's lamps or reflectors or impairs photometric output. After sale, a dealer (or distributor or manufacturer, but not the vehicle owner) has a responsibility under 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) of not "knowingly rendering inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . ." In the context of Standard No. 108 we have equated a rendering inoperative with impaired effectiveness or impaired photometrics so that the same consideration would apply; a dealer could not install the Back Rack on a used vehicle if it affects compliance with Standard No. 108.

The installation of the Back Rack appears to present some compliance problems. Based upon an informal review and the photographs you submitted, the front part of the carrier may reduce headlamp candlepower output below the required minimum at several test points, as for example, at test points HV, H-3R and 3L and H 9R and 9L on the upper beam, and at test points 1 1/2 D-2R, 1/2 D-1 1/2 R on the low beam.

Looking at the turn signals which are required to have an 8.0 square inch minimum projected luminous area, the carrier support design may mask them to the extent that the direction of the turn signal might not be clearly understood. The carrier support location may not allow these lamps to provide an unobstructed effective projected illuminated area of outer lens surface, excluding reflex, of at least 2 square inches, measured at 45 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. This requirement must also be met by the taillamps. Further with respect to the taillamps, with the carrier in place, they may not be visible through a horizontal angle from 45 degrees to the left and/or right, as Standard No. 108 requires.

The design location of the carrier supports may reduce the minimum effective projected luminous area of the stop lamps below the 8 square inch minimum of Standard No. 108.

As for backup lamps, the visibility requirements are complex, those of SAE Standard J593c as modified by S4.1.1.22 of Standard No. 108, but in essence the lamps must be "readily visible" to use your phrase.

These interpretations are based upon the photographs you supplied, and are meant to be illustrative as there are many different lighting configurations on vehicles, and we do not know that the Back Rack would affect compliance in all instances.

"7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?"

Dimensional requirements of headlights conform to SAE J571d, Dimensional Specifications of Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1966, parking lights, SAE J 222, Parking Lamps (Position Lamps) December 1970, directional lights (turn signals) SAE J588e, Turn Signal Lamps (Rear Position Light), August 1970. Copies of the foregoing SAE Standards are attached. In addition, the minimum and maxima of lens visibility requirements for parking lamps, turn signal lamps and taillamps are set forth in these SAE Standards. The minimum and maximum photometric requirements of headlights are set forth in SAE J 579a, August 1965 and J 579c, December 1974, as well as the design parameters of rectangular headlamps units SAE J 1132, Sealed Beam Headlamp Units for Motor Vehicles (copies also attached).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

March 13, 1979

John Womack, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Transportation

Re: The Back Rack T.M. Carrier by Ennova, Inc.

Dear John:

I have taken the liberty of forwarding this letter and the enclosure herewith to you so that you may channel same to the proper individual for inspection. Your involvement in this matter will produce better results than if I sent the material to the Department generally.

Our client, Ennova, Inc., seeks to market and arrange for the distribution of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier to dealers for installation on privately owned motor vehicles. Prior to the production of the carrier, I would like to determine if the Department of Transportation can detect potential regulatory obstacles or other problems with the product. In addition, I would be pleased to entertain any suggestions which the Department may have.

I have enclosed six (6) photographs (two with detailed measurements) plus a letter explaining the Carrier written by the designer. Those materials are for the sole use of the Department of Transportation in its consultations with the above-referenced lawfirm. The information and specifications contained within the enclosures will be divulged to the public only upon the Department's receipt of a carefully constructed, detailed and specific request for same. This request must meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act before the Department is obligated to release the requested information.

My questions in reference to the Back Rack T.M. Carrier are as follows: 1. Are equipment carriers which fasten to a privately owned motor vehicle regulated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Act (hereinafter, the NHTSA) so that state law in this area is pre-empted?

2. Does the NHTSA contain any standards or regulations pertaining to roof racks or equipment carriers? Does the motor vehicle safety act contain any such regulations?

3. Does the NHTSA establish any guidelines for motor vehicle bumpers or fenders which the Back Rack T.M. Carrier appears to violate? Does the fact that the rear platform extends out behind the vehicle place the Rack in contravention of any federal standards?

The Back Rack is intended to become affixed to the rear bumper in a semi-permanent manner and protrude therefrom. Does this bring the carrier into a regulated area? If so, what is the citation of the regulations and what must be done to conform the platform to same?

4. Does the height, width or depth of any aspect of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier present a problem?

5. The structural supports of the Back Rack T.M. Carrier obscure the vehicle's lighting in some aspects both front and rear. Does the obstruction violate any provisions of the NHTSA or the Motor Vehicle Safety Act? In particular, does the Carrier violate in any manner the provisions of Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

6. What is the minimum amount of ascertainable candle power required to be visible from each vehicular light subsequent to sunset? Must back-up lights be readily visible?

7. What are the dimensional requirements of headlight, parking, directional and tail lights? What percentage of these lenses must be totally visible?

8. If the Back Rack T.M. Carrier as it appears in the photographs were installed by a dealer, would it be in contravention of any federal law, standard or regulation exclusive of laws relating to products liability and defective equipment.

Please arrange for your Department to have someone consider the Carrier and these questions carefully. I would appreciate it if the Department would contact me personally or in writing with a concrete response to this inquiry within one (1) month.

If there are any procedures which I can follow to obtain a letter of approval indicating that the Carrier does not structurally violate any federal standard, please apprise me of same.

In addition, please forward me the name of the DOT representation assigned to respond to this inquiry.

Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter.

John H. Latshaw, Jr.

ENCLS.

cc: RICHARD R. CHUTTER -- PRES., ENNOVA, INC.

PRODUCTION MODEL WILL BE 50 DEGREES

(Graphics omitted)

COPYRIGHT (C) Ennova. Inc. 1978

BACK RACK TM Carrier by Ennova

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.4

DATE: 03/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/21/76 letter from S.P. Wood to Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TEXT:

March 28, 1979

Mr. Moe Pare, Jr. Director of Design Cars & Concepts, Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton, Michigan 48116

Dear Mr. Pare:

This responds to your March 2, 1979, letter concerning the definition of the vehicle sub-classification, "convertible." your letter included several Figures of various vehicle designs and asked whether each would be considered a "convertible" by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a "sun roof" or a "Hurst hatch roof" do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location (April 21, 1976, letter of interpretation enclosed). This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the "A" and "B" pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.

Given this interpretation, only the Fiat X-19 vehicle design illustrated in your Figure 5 would qualify as a "convertible." Each vehicle design in your other illustrations (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9) include fixed, rigid structural components joining the "A" and "B" pillar sections of the vehicles and, therefore, would not be classified as convertibles. Likewise, the designs would not be considered "open-body type vehicles" (49 CFR 571.3) for the same reason; the structural member, whether hidden or not, would be considered part of the vehicle top. Also, I would point out that the "open-body vehicle" designation generally refers to multi-purpose passenger vehicles such as "jeeps" or "dune buggies."

I hope this clarification is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure (See 4/21/76 letter from S.P. Wood to Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.)

March 2, 1979

Mr. Hugh Oates Office of the Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Hugh:

Per our telephone conversation, I have become confused regarding the legal definition for a "convertible body". At one time I had felt that any vehicle with structure extending from "A" to "B" pillar would not be classified as a convertible; however, I am unable to locate documentation to that effect.

The only definition I can locate is carried in Part 571.3(b) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards, which defines an "open-body type vehicle" (a term which is used interchangeably with "convertible" in FMVSS No. 208.S4.1.1.3.2. and No. 208.S4.1.2.3.2.) as a vehicle with no occupant compartment top or one which can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience.

By both definitions, I feel that Figure 1, showing a Mazda RX7 with a removable roof panel, does not qualify as a convertible. As this vehicle has roof side rail structures that go directly from "A" to "B" pillar and a full exterior roof stamping, this car, I feel, ought be classified as a coupe.

Similarly, the Renault Gordini (Figure 2) has a much larger opening (extending from "A" to "C" pillar); however, as the "opening" is still surrounded by roof structure (in plan view), I feel secure in assuming that such a vehicle is a coupe also.

Please look at Figures 3 and 4. These photographs show a 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix with a Hurst hatch roof, and a 1979 Chrysler Cordoba with an ASC (American Sunroof Corporation) hatch roof installation. These roofs are similar in that both rely on two "U"-shape openings cut into the roof in a manner that would allow an exterior "roof panel section" along the vehicle's longitudinal centerline. These roofs are installed on "coupe" bodies, but as part of this installation the entire "occupant compartment top" /refer to Part 571.3(b)/, from left, side DLO to right, side DLO, is never removed (either by the manufacturer or user). Again, using both mentioned definitions, I feel these vehicles fall outside the classification of a convertible or "open-body type vehicle".

Now examine Figure 5 showing a Fiat X-19 targa top. As is clear from the photo, this vehicle has "A" and "B" pillars with transverse (to the plan view centerline) structure extending from both "A" and "B" pillars, but clearly has a completely removable "occupant compartment top" with no structure at all between the "A" and "B" pillars (above the beltline). Using both above definitions, this car is clearly a convertible.

Figure 6 shows the roof structure employed on a 1977 Corvette. While this car does have centerline reinforcement member, it is not part of the exterior roof panel sections. Because this center member is not part of the roof panel, and is usually hidden from view, I feel this component takes on the character of a "central (in side view)" reinforcing member and is therefore more closely related to the conventional old style convertible chassis reinforcements than the vehicle's occupant compartment top.

Finally I have come to my real area of concern, shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9. These Cars & Concepts roofs have been granted U.S. Patent No. 4,138,155 which is based largely on the Cars & Concepts installation requirement that the entire occupant compartment top (from right, side DLO to left, side DLO) is completely removed. Similar to the Corvette, our roof also uses a hidden centerline structure which takes the place of the needed chassis reinforcements. Also similar is the "panel to panel" configuration used in our roofs (see Page 2 of Figure 6). These two removable panels comprise (virtually) the entire "occupant compartment top". A basic difference between our roof and that of the Corvette is that our roof has a full width exterior roof panel at the windshield header (as does the X-19), and Chevrolet never actually removes the entire occupant compartment top (including center reinforcement; this center reinforcement is part of the windshield header structure and is basic to the vehicle's construction) of the Corvette.

To summarize, it seems obvious to me that a Fiat X-19 is a convertible, while a coupe with a sunroof is not. It does not seem to me, however, that a car with a Hurst hatch which does not remove the entire occupant compartment top (roof panel) is a convertible. By the same token, a Corvette never exists without an overhead centerline reinforcement member, but the entire exterior roof portion is removable creating a vehicle that fits the N.H.T.S.A.'s criterion for an "open-body". Finally on the Cars & Concepts roof installation, the entire occupant section of a coupe is removed (at this stage it is clearly a targa type vehicle); then in place of chassis reinforcement, we add a centerline structural member and install a removable two piece occupant compartment top.

My question obviously is: between the Fiat, the Corvette, Hurst's roof, and our roof, which (if any) would the N.H.T.S.A. consider a convertible? Thank you for your consideration; please call with any questions.

Sincerely,

Moe Pare, Jr. Director of Design

MP/dma

cc: D. Draper