ID: nht95-3.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Helen A. Rychlewski -- MGA Research Corporation

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 06/07/95 LETTER FROM HELEN A. RYCHLEWSKI TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Rychlewski:

This responds to your letter of June 7, 1995, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), requesting an interpretation of whether a vehicle can be certified as meeting the seat back requirements in S3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, based on the results of a particular test. The vehicle is equipped with a seat with an inertial latch on the recliner. In order to keep the seat from folding forward during the test proc edure specified in FMVSS No. 201, you welded the inertial latch to conduct the test.

In past agency interpretation of the safety standards, NHTSA has stated that if (1) there are two or more possible conditions under which a compliance test may be conducted (e.g., whether an inertial lock is engaged or not); (2) the standard does not spe cify which test condition is to be used, and (3) the language of the standard as a whole and the standard's purpose do not imply a limit that would make one of those conditions inappropriate, there is a presumption that the requirements have to be met un der all test conditions.

The intent of FMVSS No. 201 is to minimize injuries caused by an occupant striking interior components during a crash. Because inertial latches are intended to lock during a crash, NHTSA believes that testing with the inertial latch engaged most closely indicates the protection offered to an occupant during a crash. Therefore, NHTSA would test a vehicle seat back on a seat with an inertial latch with the latch engaged.

The test procedures in NHTSA standards are the procedures NHTSA will use in compliance testing. While manufacturers are not required to test their products using those procedures, they must ensure that the vehicle would comply when tested by NHTSA. NHT SA could weld the latch as you have done, or could engage the inertial latch through other means. If you believe that the test you conducted indicates that the seat back will comply when tested by NHTSA with the latch engaged, such a test may be the bas is for your certification.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need additional information, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht67-1.24

DATE: 08/18/67

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lowell K. Bridwell; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request to Dr. Haddon for an interpretation of the term "rigid material" as it appears in paragraph S3.4.1(b) in the National Highway Safety Bureau's "talking paper" of July 6, 1967. This term is identical to that used in paragraph S.3.4.1(b) of Standard 201, issued August 11, 1967. Therefore, the following interpretation applies to Standard 201 as issued August 11, 1967, a copy of which is enclosed.

"Rigid material" does not include a supporting structure of an armrest that is made of flexible spring steel if the supporting structure is designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area.

MERCEDES-BENZ OR NORTH AMERICA INC.

July 11, 1967

Dr. William Haddon, Jr. Director National Highway Safety Bureau

Re.: Application for Binding Ruling Standard 201, provisional July 6, 1967, Armrests S 3.4.1 (b).

As indicated in the discussion of the proposed language on July 9, 1967, we are applying for a ruling that the definition of "rigid material" in line 4 shall be understood not to include such supporting structures of armrests which are made of flexible spring steel when such supporting structure designed to flex in the direction of transverse impact upon the pelvic impact area, and shall therefore not be subject to the requirement of "minimum vertical height of not less than 1"."

Argument: There are numerous armrest designs which may not qualify under the requirements of S 3.4.1(a) since they are at some part less than 2" wide laterally, and therefore must qualify under Para. (b). If such armrests are designed to combine the function of a door opener, i.e. with a fingerhole, a flexible spring core is ideally suited and has many times been used as a demonstrably safe design in the past. The spring material, which need not necessarily be steel but may also take the form of various plastics, provides the necessary strength for vertical support required for an armrest but gives upon transverse impact to avoid injury.

We should be grateful to receive your ruling at the earliest possible date in view of current production schedules for the 1968 models, and in view of the fact that with this indication we agreed to wave further amending language of the standard Para. S 3.4.1 (b), so as to provide for the possibility of clear definitions in some future revisions.

Respectfully,

H. C. Hoppe

ID: nht71-4.39

DATE: 11/03/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Patton; Blow; Virrill; Brand & Boggs

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 12, 1971, in which you made several requests with respect to the Tire Identification and Record Keeping (49 CFR Part 574) and Certification (49 CFR Part 567) regulations.

1. You suggested that the Tire Identification and Record Keeping regulation be amended to provide that where tires are not shipped on or in a vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer's record keeping obligation be limited to three years from the date of sale. We will take this request into consideration, and let you know when a decision is made. It appears that since the minimum time would apply to all vehicle manufacturers, such a requirement should appear in a regulation other than Part 574.

2. You requested the deletion of the requirement that information on the certification label be placed "in the order shown." We have previously denied petitions relating to the order of information on the label (36 F.R. 19593), and this request is also denied. The requirement that the label information be placed in a definite order has been in effect for over two years, and has been found to enhance the readability and hence the usefulness of the label. Now that further numerical information is to be required on the label, we consider that it will be even more important that this requirement be maintained.

3. You requested "an interpretation that a multi-column label or a label in two parts each with an information column, will meet the requirements of [Part] 567," because of the space limitations on some trailers. As long as the information appears in the order specified in the regulation, the NHTSA has no objection to a multi-column label or a label in two parts.

4. Finally, you requested that a trailer manufacturer be allowed to use up his existing supply of labels, by affixing a supplementary label with the additional required information. As stated above, we have decided to adhere to the requirement that the information on the label be in the order specified, although it may be in more than one column or part. To the extent that the action requested would allow a manufacturer not to conform to that requirement, the request is denied. Although the deviation might appear small, it would seriously detract from the integrity and enforceability of the regulation to allow incidental nonconformity without amending the requirement. The other vehicle manufacturers have undoubtedly already incurred costs similar to those cited by your client, and it would be distinctly unfair not to enforce the regulation evenhandedly as to all parties.

ID: nht73-5.14

DATE: 09/17/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 24, 1973, concerning Toyota's use of a clip to prevent the shoulder belt from rubbing the occupant's neck. Your questions are (1) whether a clip of this type is permitted by Standard No. 208 and (2) whether the clip would be considered a part of the anchorage under Standard No. 210.

Your description of the clip indicates that it does not restrict the free travel of the webbing. The clip would therefore not inhibit the ability of the belt to adjust automatically to fit the occupant, as required by S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208. It is our opinion that such a clip is permitted by Standard No. 208.

We have also concluded that a plastic guide clip designed so as not to affect the basic geometry of the belt during a crash is not a seat belt anchorage for purposes of Standard No. 210. The clip you describe would therefore not be required to meet the strength of location requirements of that Standard.

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

August 24, 1973

Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

For the purpose of encouraging our customers to use the seatbelt system, Toyota has been striving to minimize the possible discomfort or irritation which they may experience when wearing the upper torso belts, and we have developed a clip which is attached to the upper portion of the seat back as shown in the enclosed photo.

This clip is used to prevent the shoulder harness from contacting the occupant's neck and does not affect the retractive movement of the seatbelt shoulder harness. This clip, which is made of plastic, is designed so as not to hinder the performance of the seatbelt system during an accident.

Toyota believes the above-mentioned clip meets the intent of FMVSS No. 208 and the requirements of paragraph @ 7.1.1 of that standard. Toyota does not consider a clip of this nature to be an anchorage to which the requirements of FMVSS No. 210 apply.

As soon as we receive your favorable reply regarding this interpretation, we would like to install the clip on some of our models to improve the comfort of the seatbelt system.

Your prompt response to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Keitaro Nakajima Director/General Manager Factory Representative Office

Attachment

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-3.30

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Takeo Wakamatsu -- Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mitsubishi Motors America, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-28-91 from Takeo Wakamatsu to Scott Shadle (OCC 5897)

TEXT:

This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter to Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for "derating" the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request.

NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity."

There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles.

I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions.

ID: nht88-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FRANK V. TANZELLA -- TEK TRON, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-5-88, FROM FRANK V. TANZELLA, TO NHTSA, OCC-1857

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or el ement of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the p ublic as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR @ 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "mot or vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by addi ng the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles aft er installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions wit h the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned

installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act.

Enclosures

ID: nht92-6.41

DATE: May 22, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Charles Chun -- General Manager, Kia Motors Corporation, Los Angeles Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/1/92 from Charles Chun to Paul J. Rice (OCC 7169)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 1, 1992, requesting an interpretation of section S5 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214, Side Impact Protection. You asked two questions, which I have answered below.

First, you asked about the meaning of "manufactured date," in connection with cars that would be produced at your factory in Korea and imported into the United States. Specifically, you asked whether the "manufactured date" would be the date of production at the Kia factory or the date of U.S. customs clearance.

For purposes of S5 of Standard No. 214 and all the rest of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards, the date of manufacture is the date on which the assembly and other manufacturing operations are completed for a motor vehicle. See 49 CFR Part 571.7 and 49 CFR Part 567.4(g)(2) and (5). Therefore, the "manufactured date" for the your company's vehicles would be the production date at the Kia factory in Korea.

Second, you asked whether "manufactured date," as used in S5 of Standard No. 214, has the same meaning as "model year." The answer is no. The term "model year" is defined in 49 CFR Part 565.3(h) as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than two calendar years." As explained above, the concept of "manufactured date" refers to the actual date on which manufacturing operations are completed on a vehicle, not a year designation chosen by the manufacturer.

Please note that the minimum percentage phase-in requirements for Standard No. 214's dynamic requirements are based on annual production periods and not model years.

See, for example, S8.1 to S8.1.1 of Standard No. 214. A manufacturer's annual production of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1993 and before September 1, 1994 would include all passenger cars completed during that time. The annual production period for purposes of the Standard No. 214 phase-in would not be based on the number of passenger cars which the manufacturer chose to designate as model year 1994 cars.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

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: 1983-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr H. Nakaya Manager Mazda (North America) Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road - Suite 462 Southfield, MI 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This is in response to your letter of July 8 1983 asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

Section S4.2 of SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps establishes a minimum distance of 4 inches from the optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal to the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp providing the lower beam. You believe that it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp and you have asked whether you may substitute the edge of the reflector (as shown on your drawing) to measure the dimension covered by S4.2 of J588e.

The point depicted on your drawing appears to be the inner edge of the reflector, rather than the extreme edge; nevertheless, the "reflector edge" you have indicated is the approximate location of a retaining ring on a fully sealed headlamp, and is therefore acceptable as a measuring point under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 8, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington; D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda requests interpretation regarding the amendment to FMVSS No.108 which allows the use of semi-sealed headlamps (Docket No. 81-11; Notice 3, 48 F.R. 24690).

Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e states that, "The optical axis (filament center) of the front turn signal shall be at least 4 in. from the inside diameter of the retaining ring of the headlamp unit providing the lower beam." However, it is not necessary to have a retaining ring on a semi-sealed headlamp. We, therefore, believe that it is appropriate to use the edge of the reflector, instead of the inside diameter of the retaining ring, to measure the dimension described in Section 4.2 of SAE Standard J588e (See attached sketch).

We would appreciate your interpretation of this matter as soon as possible.

Very truly yours, H. Nakaya Manager

HN/ab

cc: Att.

FIGURE 1: SEMI-SEALED HEADLAMP (PLAN VIEW SECTION) GRAPH INSERTED HERE REFLECTOR EDGE

ID: nht87-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/03/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Walter Mayr -- Austrian Trade Commission

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Walter Mayr The Austrian Trade Commission 1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1114 Washington, D.C. 20009

This responds to your August 5, 1987 letter to my office and August 14 telephone conversation between Ms. Schott of your staff and Ms. Hom of mine, concerning our regulations for motor vehicles. You enclosed a brochure from the Austrian firm, Reformwerke Wels, describing a "public utility vehicle." Subsequently, Ms. Schott indicated in her telephone call that Reformwerke Wels has informed her that the vehicles in question have a top speed of 15.53 miles per hour (mph). Based on this information, you asked whether the vehicle is a "motor vehicle" for the purposes of our reg ulations. The answer is no.

Under a longstanding policy, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has regarded vehicles not to be "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and therefore not subject to our motor vehicle safet y standards, if they (1) have an unusual body configuration which sets the vehicles apart from typical highway traffic, and (2) have a minimum attainable speed of 20 mph or less. The utility vehicles manufactured by Reformwerke Wels meet these criteria. Thus, the vehicles are not "motor vehicles" under our regulations and the manufacture of those vehicles is not regulated by this agency.

You might wish to contact the Consumer Project Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations applicable to the type of utility vehicle manufactured by Reformwerke Wels. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consum er Product Safety Commission, 1111 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20207. Telephone: (202) 492-6980.

Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Dierdre Hom Chief Counsel's Office Department of Transportation Room 5219 NHTSA 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 August 5 1987

Dear Ms. Hom,

Further to your telephone conversation this morning with Susan Schott from our office, we enclose a brochure from the Austrian firm, Reformwerke Wels.

We appreciate your office to review this brochure which describes the tractor. I understand that if you determine that the tractor qualifies as a motor vehicle, you can advise us of the corresponding regulations.

Thank you in advance for your assistance and we look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Walter Mayr Trade Commissioner

Enclosure omitted