ID: nht79-4.53

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA

TO: HERBERT L. MISCH -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ENGINEERING STAFF, FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This letter is in response to your letter of August 31, 1979, concerning the perceptions and realities of the safety of children in cars equipped with air bags.

On September 13, 1979, a team of senior level National Highway Traffic Safety Administration engineers and scientists visited Ford for discussions with your staff on the questions you raised in your letter. They reported to me that on the basis of their discussions, additional staff level discussions would be beneficial.

Federal regulations on automatic occupant crash protection, like all motor vehicle safety standards, are minimum requirements. Compliance with these requirements may not be sufficient to provide an adequate level of safety for all occupants under all circumstances. Manufacturers are expected to be responsible for the development, design, testing, and manufacture of safety systems in their cars that provide a level of safety that is consistent with the capability of the technology, the state of its development, and the practical constraints of motor vehicle mass production and marketing, as you indicate in your letter.

We disagree with your contention that responsibility for the protection of children, who are otherwise unrestrained and out of their normal seating position, significantly differs from the usual situation with other safety systems or other Federal requirements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has considered at various times adding further performance criteria to the requirements of FMVSS 208. However, the Agency is very reluctant to do so unless a substantial problem is identified that can only be addressed in this way. Such additional criteria tend to restrict innovations in designs and test procedures used by the manufacturers. They can also decrease the incentive to a manufacturer to try to achieve the safest possible systems because they freeze performance requirements, and inhibit innovation.

Ford has available to it the basic information (beyond that which is proprietary to other companies) and the resources that are available to the other automobile companies or to the government. You have substantial in-house expertise, and many independent experts and contractors are available to help assess: 1) the test protocols that are appropriate to measure the performance of restraint systems in frequent, high risk, real world situations; 2) the specific performance of Ford's air bag system; and 3) whether any modifications in the Ford system are warranted.

As we announced on Monday, October 1, 1979, in a press conference concerning General Motors' decision to postpone their 1981 introduction of air bags into production, I have appointed a special team to assess the basis of GM's decision. (A copy of my statement is enclosed.) The assessment has already begun, and will proceed for at least the next several months. This team will look at accident data and the position of occupants in cars at the time of a crash to determine the frequency and risk to vehicle occupants of various circumstances involving the restraint system. They will also assess the biomechanics and biofidelity of various surrogates used for occupants, particularly children in testing. We will keep you informed of the progress of this work as it goes forward.

We must not lose sight of the fact that air bags offer a very substantial potential for improving automobile occupant safety. The opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries in frontal crashes to less than one half their present levels provides strong justification to commercialize these automatic restraints at the earliest practical date, provided due care has been exercised in the development and testing of systems for the variety of situations in which they will be needed.

I hope that these comments, and any assistance that our staff can provide, will be useful in resolving the questions you have about your air bag system. We also hope to see Ford as the first company to resume air bag production in the 1981 model year.

ID: nht79-4.54

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: STERLING TROXEL

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This confirms your March 15, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked several questions about the applicability of the school bus safety standards.

First, you asked what vehicles must comply with the standards. The school bus standards apply to new vehicles that transport school children to or from school or related events and that carry more than 10 persons including the driver. For example, any new vehicle that transports 10 passengers (Illegible Words) or from school or related events must comply with the safety standards.

In your second question, you ask whether a school may purchase a used vehicle that does not comply with the school bus safety standards even if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of those standards (April 1, 1977). The answer to this question is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate the sale or use of used vehicles. Therefore, there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling such a used vehicle for school use.

With respect to your second question, a school should always examine state licensing requirements, insurance problems, and potential private liability considerations before purchasing noncomplying school vehicles. Vehicles that transport more than 10 persons and that do not comply with the school bus safety standards are much less safe than similar vehicles that do comply with the standards.

ID: nht79-4.55

DATE: 07/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mini-Comtesse

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the two vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines motor-driven cycle (moped) as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." A motorcycle is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.

The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, would not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.

All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.

The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has had serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.

SINCERELY,

Frank BERNDT

Acting Chief Counsel

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Angers - May 21, 1979

Dear Sir,

Mr. J.M. LORNE of the French Embassy has advised us to contact you relating to the classification of our vehicles in the United States.

We have enclosed leaflets of the COMTESSE and SUPER-COMTESSE manufactured by our Company, and we shall be most obliged if you will please let us know:

- whether these two models may be classified as mopeds by your Administration (2 cycle engine, piston displacement 49 cc)?

- according to the category in which they will be classified, what would be the regulations and driving conditions to be observed?

Looking forward with much interest to your comments and thanking you in anticipation, we are

R. HIRIBARREN Director (Attachments omitted.)

ID: nht79-4.6

DATE: 09/18/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: Safety Engineering Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which has been forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, regarding lap belts and/or shoulder belts for fire trucks.

The enclosed Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are relevant to the installation of safety belts in fire trucks. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to new vehicles and require trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle rating of more than 10,000 pounds to have either a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt combination seat belt assembly at each designated seating position.

The term "designated seating position" is defined as "Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) shall have not less than three designated seating positions, unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating." If the Tillerman's seat is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion it would be a designated seating position and would have to be equipped with a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt.

If a particular fire truck were not required to be equipped with seat belts when originally manufactured, it would not subsequently have to be equipped with belts, slace our regulations only apply to new vehicles. For example, a fire truck manufactured before the applicable sections of FMVSS No. 208 became effective did not have to be equipped with belts. Further, no OSHA regulations would require retrofitting of belts in vehicles not originally required to have them.

If we can be of further service in this matter, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht79-4.7

DATE: 04/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 15, 1979, concerning the definition of "forward control" vehicle contained in 49 CFR 571.3. Your specific concern is how to measure a vehicle's length to determine if "the steering wheel hub is in the forward quarter of the vehicle length."

Overall vehicle length should be determined by measuring the maximum longitudinal distance between the foremost point on the front bumper face bar and the rearmost point on the rear bumper face bar. In the context of the Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR 581), the agency considers bumper guards to be part of the bumper face bar if they are contacted by the impact ridge of the pendulum test device used in compliance testing (43 F.R. 20804, May, 15, 1978). For the purposes of determining vehicle length, the agency will consider bumper guards as a part of the vehicle bumper face bar and thus included in the measurement of vehicle length. Components such as a permanent or fold-down step which are not associated with the bumper system's function are not considered part of the bumper face bar for the purposes of Part 581 Bumper Standard (43 F.R. 40230, Sept. 11, 1978). Therefore, the agency will not consider a permanent or fold-down step as a part of the bumper face bar for the purposes of determining vehicle length.

I have enclosed for your information a notice of proposed rule-making which would extend Standards No. 201, 203 and 204 to forward control vehicles. The notice also states the agency's intention to eliminate the forward control exemption found in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

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

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

February 15, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to request interpretation relating to the NHTSA definition of "forward control."

In determining the front quarter of the vehicle length we need to know what is included in the measurement.

Example would be if the bumper guards on the front bumper are included in the measurement.

Although the vehicle we receive from the manufacturer as a completed vehicle is not certified as a forward control, if we add a step either permanent or fold-up behind the original rear bumper, can this increase in length dimension be used to determine the front quarter of the vehicle?

Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht79-4.8

DATE: 03/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 28, 1979, letter asking about the remanufacturing of vehicles using old chassis and new bodies. In particular, you ask whether these vehicles must comply with the new safety standards.

The remanufacturing operation that you mention need not comply with the new safety standards. Such a remanufactured vehicle may need to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis. Otherwise, there might be a rendering inoperative of the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards. I am enclosing a copy of an interpretation that discusses the remanufacturing issue.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

February 28, 1979

Office Of The Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: Body Re-Mount

Dear Mr. Tilton:

We are inquiring with respect to the mounting of a "new" body on an "old" chassis.

In reviewing previous rulings, we find numerous references to the opposite e.g. "new" chassis - "old" body.

It is our understanding that the chassis since it constitutes what is considered the "motor vehicle" is the ruling factor. In other words, any replacement body should and must meet at least the Federal Standards in effect at the time of the manufacturing date of the chassis. It is preferred that the body meet the Federal Standards in effect at the time of body's manufacture.

While you personally may not handle this particular segment of the standards, we would appreciate your forwarding our inquiry to the proper party.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht79-4.9

DATE: 07/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Daniel K. Akaka; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 21, 1979, telephone request asking how automobile dealers can determine when they must sell school buses as opposed to regular vans.

The key factors in making this determination are the purpose for which the vehicle will be used and the passenger carrying capacity of the vehicle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the school bus safety standards in response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). In defining "schoolbus", Congress drew upon NHTSA's definition of "bus", i.e., any motor vehicle, including a van, designed to carry more than 10 persons. Congress stated that the term "schoolbus" means "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers . . . and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting . . . students to or from school or events related to such schools." The NHTSA concluded from this mandate that any vehicle that is a bus and will be used on a regular and recurring basis to transport school children must comply with school bus safety standards. To effect this conclusion, the agency issued a definition of "schoolbus" which is "a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to or from school or related events . . . ."

The effect of the 1974 amendments and the agency's definition is to require any new bus that is sold to transport school children on a regular basis to comply with the safety standards. Compliance is required whether a bus is used regularly to transport students 100 percent of the time or whether it regularly transport students only 10 percent of the time while otherwise transporting adults.

ID: nht80-1.1

DATE: 01/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glen Brinks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the Federal safety regulations applicable to motorcycle fuel tanks and motorcycle trailers.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regarding fuel system intergrity, Standard No. 301-75, currently does not apply to motorcycles. Two safety standards would be applicable to the manufacture of motorcycle trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment and Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The manufacturer of a trailer, including a motorcycle trailer, would have to certify the compliance of the trailer to these two safety standards. Part 566 of our regulations, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR 566), specifies information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufactures of motor vehicles, including trailers. Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards. I am enclosing an information sheet that explains where you can obtain copies of these safety standards and regulations.

ENC.

November 23, 1979

Joseph Levin NHTSA

Dear Mr. Levin;

Some time ago, you were a big help to me when I was working on a kit car article for Road & Track magazine. Currently, I am working on another project requiring a knowledge of NHTSA regulations and I wonder if you could help out again. Could you send me a copy of the NHTSA regulations relating to 1) motorcycle fuel tank construction, type of fittings required, fuel lines, etc. and 2) motorcycle trailers? Thank you very much for your consideration.

Glenn Brinks

ID: nht80-1.10

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requested an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacement sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.

Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean that NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group November 16, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Ref: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Gentlemen:

We are considering marking our P-series tires with the alpha-numeric size they replace shown below in parenthesis. An example would be as follows:

P205/75 R15 (replaces FR78-15)

Similarly, we are considering marking our 230-15 tire as follows:

230-15 (replaces 225-15)

The 230-15 can be used on all cars that are fitted with 225-15.

Please advise us if such markings would be in violation of FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. Standard.

Your quick response would be appreciated since we are planning to start these programs shortly.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht80-1.11

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent letter and visit to the NHTSA regarding the proper designated seating capacity for the Volvo 262C Coupe. The rear bench seat in this vehicle is 53.15 inches wide and has two depressed areas with contoured upholstery to fashion bucket seats. You ask whether the seat may be designated as having only two seating positions.

It is the agency's opinion that the rear seat in the Volvo 262C Coupe must have three designated seating positions. The definition of "designated seating position" provides, in part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, "unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating" (49 CFR 571.3). The rear seat in the Volvo Coupe is substantially over this 50-inch caveat in the definition, since it has more than 53 inches of hip room. Further, the seat design is not such that the center position cannot be used for seating. The center position is well padded on both the seat cushion and the seat back and there is no impediment to use of the position. This was demonstrated when several persons sat at the center position when your demonstration vehicle was brought to the agency.

Your letter mentions that the Volvo Coupe has less head room than other Volvo models, yet there is sufficient head room even at the center position for large persons to occupy the seat. Therefore, we do not believe that the vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used. The fact that the two outboard positions of the rear seat are aesthetically designed to appear as bucket seats is irrelevant, since the center position is a well-padded integral part of the entire bench seat. Other current models have the same type bucket seat appearance in the rear seat, yet because of hip room have three designated seating positions. You might examine the 1978 Oldsmobile Regency Sedan, for example.

We noted in the demonstration model that the rear seat of the Volvo Coupe has an arm rest at the center position that folds into the seat back. If the design of this arm rest were modified to be permanently attached to the seat cushion, the center position could not be used. The bench seat would then qualify as a two-person seat under the definition of "designated seating position".

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and an examination of the demonstration model brought to the agency. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify the vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

December 7, 1979

Robert Nelson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Nelson:

This letter is sent in response to your request for information concerning the rear seat dimensions of the Volvo 262C Coupe. The width of the seat (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100 (a)) is 1350 mm, 53.15 inches compared to 1430 mm (56.30 in.) for other Volvo vehicles.

We are providing a Volvo Coupe for your inspection on December 11, 1979 at your offices in Washington, D. C. The Volvo Coupe is a limited production vehicle, about 1500 are expected to be sold in the United States this model year. As you know, all other Volvo models (DL, GL, GLE & GT) have a rear seat different from the Coupe and were designed to accommodate three designated rear seating positions. The rear seating depressions and design of the upholstery of the Volvo Coupe are intended to provide occupancy for two persons. The choice of a depression to divide the two seating positions was influenced by the reduced head room, as compared to other Volvo models. Based on these differences from the other Volvo models, we believe that the Volvo Coupe should be classified as a 4 passenger vehicle.

If we can provide any additional information, please let me know.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development

Richard Tearle, Engineer, Regulatory Affairs