ID: nht80-3.23

DATE: 07/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 29 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Roger Maugh Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This is in response to your request for our comments concerning the prototype automatic belt system on the demonstration vehicle you brought to the agency several weeks ago. You were particularly concerned about past agency comments regarding automatic belt designs of this type that are so easily disconnectable.

We are concerned about automatic belt designs whose release mechanisms are so similar to those of current manual belts that they may actually encourage disconnection by motorists. By the same token, however, we realize that an automatic belt design that is extremely difficult to disconnect could lead to frustration of a motorist who does not wish to use it and to permanent defeat of the belt system. This, of course, is also not desirable since it would deprive a subsequent vehicle occupant who wanted to use the belt of protection. We hope manufacturers will develop innovative systems that will minimize these conflicting concerns.

Regarding the particular design that you demonstrated at our meeting, the release mechanism appears to be in compliance with the current provisions of Safety Standard No. 208. This is not to say, however, that additional features to discourage disconnection of the system are not desirable.

We were also concerned with other aspects of your automatic belt. For example, when the vehicle door was open the belt webbing lay on the vehicle seat, making entry into the vehicle both confusing and difficult for a vehicle occupant. Since such a design requires the occupant to lift the belt webbing, it could prove to be very inconvenient, particularly if the occupant is carrying an object like a bag of groceries. As you are aware, the recent proposal concerning seat belt comfort and convenience included a specification for 3-inch webbing/seat clearance. Even more than three inches may be needed to insure that automatic belts are in fact automatic and convenient (I am enclosing a past agency interpretation on this subject). You should consider these points when making a final decision concerning this type belt design.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the brief examination of the belt system during our recent meeting. It is up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance.

Thank you for bringing this prototype automatic belt system to the agency for inspection.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-4.20

DATE: 11/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Stephen E. Mulligan International Harvester 4O1 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611

Dear Mr. Mulligan:

This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in which you ask whether compliance with 49 CFR 567, Certification, will satisfy the requirements of S4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, 49 CFR 571.115.

Section 4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 requires that the vehicle identification number (VIN) "appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle other than the glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair or upon a separate plate or label which is permanently affixed to such a part." S4.3.1 requires each character to appear in a capital, sans typeface. In the case of passenger cars and trucks of 10,OOO pounds or less GVWR, each character must have a minimum height of 4 mm. s4.4 specifies that the VIN for passenger cars and trucks of 10,000 pounds or less GVWR shall be located within the passenger compartment.

Section 567.4 of Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), requires that the certification label be permanently affixed to the vehicle, and display the vehicle identification number. Consequently, for all vehicles except passenger cars and trucks of lO,OOO pounds or less GVWR, compliance with S 567.4 of Part 567 would also effect compliance with S4.3 of Standard No. 115 so long as capital, sans typeface was used.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 1, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing to request clarification of requirements which arise under Part 567 - Certification. S 567.4 requires each manufacturer of motor vehicles to affix to each vehicle a label which shall be permanently placed so that it cannot be removed without destroying or defacing it. The label is required to contain the vehicle identification number (VIN).

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 requires that each vehicle manufactured have a VIN which shall appear clearly and indelibly upon either a part of the vehicle or upon a separate plate or label permanently affixed to such a part.

International Harvester Company requests confirmation that compliance with the certification label requirements of Part 567 insures that there is also compliance with the VIN requirements set forth in FMVSS 115.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Stephen E. Mulligan

SEM:sh

ID: nht74-1.15

DATE: 05/01/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Mansfield Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1974, inquiring whether Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 permits the labeling of both the 175R13 and the BR78-13 tire size designations on the same tire.

Paragraph S4.3 of Standard No. 109 permits the labeling on the same tire of equivalent inch and metric size designations. Based upon the Tables in the Appendix of Standard No. 109, we would consider the two size designations to be equivalent inch and metric size designations, and both may therefore be labeled on the sidewall of the same tire.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Maximum Tire Loads (Pounds) At Various Cold Inflation Pressures Size 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 175R13 790 840 890 930 980 1030 1070 1110 1150 1190 BR78.13 780 840 890 930 980 1030 1070 1110 1150 1190

THE MANSFIELD TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

March 19, 1974

L. R. Schneider -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Schneider:

In the Federal Register November 1, 1973, Part III, the Department of Transportation published Passenger Car Tires and Rims Information under MVSS 109. Reviewing Rules and Regulations for Radial Ply Tires, it is noted that under Table I-H for the 175R-13 and under Table I-H for the BR78-13, the loads, inflations, rim, minimum size factor and section width are basically the same. For your observation, we are listing from the Tables both of these sizes as spelled out in these Rules and Regulations.

Maximum Tire Loads (Pounds) At Various Cold Inflation Pressures Test Min.

Rim Size Sect.

Width Fact. Width Size 36 38 40 (In.) (In.) (In.) 175R13 1230 1270 1300 4 1/2 30.30 6.75 BR78.13 1230 1270 1300 4 1/2 30.31 6.75

As these tires are both the same for the American size radial and the millimeter radial, it is our intent to mark both these sizes, as noted in MVSS 109, Part 571, Section S4.3 "Labeling Requirements", on the same tire with the maximum load and inflation branded on the tires. We are intending to use the American size tire code in the tire identification serial.

We will appreciate your reviewing this matter and unless advised to the contrary, we are intending to proceed with the marking as described above. We will appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

R. C. Hudson -- Director, Tire Engineering, Tech Service/Quality Control

ID: nht74-1.39

DATE: 02/25/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Ford

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 24, 1974, asking for an interpretation as to whether a rear lamp assembly design that Ford demonstrated to NHTSA representatives conforms to the location requirements of Standard No. 108. The assembly consists of three units which, from outboard to inboard, as a rear lighting assembly, comprise the tail lamp/stop lamp, backup lamp, and turn signal lamp.

Standard No. 108 specifies that stop lamps, tail lamps, and turn signal lamps be "as far apart as practicable." The standard does not specify a minimum separation distance of lamps, a maximum permissible location inboard, or location of one system relative to another. The determination of practicability in lamp spacing is to be made by the vehicle manufacturer, and the agency has generally afforded manufacturers some latitude in this interpretation.

Therefore, the configuration you have described and demonstrated would not violate Standard No. 108. It should be noted, however, that it would be in conflict with the requirements for rear turn signals and stop lamps as proposed in Docket 69-19, Notice 3.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 24, 1974

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Dr. Gregory:

On January 14 Ford demonstrated a rear lamp design that it plans to use on one of its 1975 models. The purpose of the demonstration was to display the design and make sure there were no misunderstandings as to the lamp's conformance with the location requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Ford pointed out that the various functions of the lamp were "as far apart as practicable" for the rear end design of the vehicle and for the separation of signal functions by space and color in which both the NHTSA and Ford are interested.

For the record the lamp assembly may be described as follows: Red White Amber Left side shown (Approximately to scale)

* The outboard pod has a red lens and wraps around the quarter panel, thus serving as a rear side market, taillamp and stop lamp and as side and rear reflex reflectors.

* The center pod has a white lens and serves as the backup lamp.

* The inboard pod has an amber lens and serves as the turn signal lamp.

While it is our impression that NHTSA technical personnel who examined this lamp design agreed that it fully meets the location requirements of Standard No. 108, we should appreciate formal confirmation that the Administration concurs in our interpretation.

Respectfully submitted,

J. C. Eckhold -- Director, Automotive Safety Office, FORD MOTOR COMPANY

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: nht78-2.13

DATE: 06/02/78

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

TO: Minnesota State Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Jim Downey of our regional office has forwarded for reply your letter of May 3, 1978, in which you asked whether a single beam headlighting system is permissible on mopeds.

The answer is yes. The portion of SAE Standard J584 that you have quoted only establishes an option to the specific requirements of J584. Table 1 of J584 permits motor driven cycles to be equipped with a single (upper) beam headlamp. We consider mopeds to be "motor driven cycles" as defined by 40 CFR 571.3(b) and J584 as they are invariably powered by a motor developing less than 5 horsepower.

I hope this answers your question.

SINCERELY

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

May 3, 1978

Jim Downey National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Office

Dear Mr. Downey:

We are having difficulty in determining whether FMVSS 108 permits single beam road lighting for mopeds.

Page 32914 of Federal Register 39, No. 178, dated September 12, 1974, contains a reference to NHTSA exploring forward lighting needs of motor-driven cycles and indicates that a decision would be made as to whether a reduced minimum standard would be appropriate.

We are unable to locate any writings as to the conclusions arrived at beyond that point other than reference in FMVSS 108 (S4.1.1) that ". . . each vehicle shall be equipped with at least the number of lamps . . . specified in Tables I and III, as applicable. Required equipment shall be designed to conform to the SAE Standards or Recommended Practices referenced in those tables."

Table III indicates one (1) white headlamp for motorcycles and cites SAE Standard J584. This standard (J584) contains the general requirement of ". . . one 7-inch sealed beam unit or one 5 3/4 inch Type 1 and one 5 3/4 inch Type 2 sealed beam units meeting the requirements of SAE J579 may be used on a motorcycle or a motor driven cycle."

Since compliance with either option of J584 results in having a high beam and a low beam we are unable to conclude that one (1) single beam headlamp on a moped constitutes compliance with FMVSS 108.

Our concern arises from the fact that our state recently adopted moped legislation requiring the same lighting equipment as is required of motorcycles and we must give due consideration to federal requirements in view of the fact that Minnesota law requires motorcycles to have both an upper beam and a lower beam.

Your assistance in this matter is deeply appreciated.

Colonel James C. Crawford Chief Minnesota State Patrol

ID: nht78-4.5

DATE: 05/10/78

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

TO: The Barbour House

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your January 12, 1978, letter asking several questions concerning the applicability of the Federal safety standards to vehicles that are being reconstructed with new chassis. The answers to your specific questions are set forth below.

1. You ask whether the replacement of the engine, transmission, drive train, rear end, frame, front axle, front brakes, wheels, and steering box constitutes the manufacture of a new chassis requiring a new or upgraded body. The answer to your question is yes. Part 571.7(e) of Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies the items that must be retained in a truck chassis in order that such chassis be considered used. These same considerations apply to reconstructed school buses since they are built on truck chassis.

2. You ask what parts of a chassis must be retained to ensure that the vehicle could continue to utilize an old body that does not comply with current Federal safety standards. Part 571.7(e) states that, at a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) must be retained.

3. You ask who must certify a remanufactured vehicle if its chassis is considered old or new. In the case of an old chassis that retains the required components and is therefore considered used, no certification is required of any repair business. In the case of a remanufactured chassis, the chassis manufacturer must certify his chassis for compliance and the shop that installs the body must certify the final compliance of the vehicle.

4. Part 568.8 states that vehicles altered before the first purchase for purposes other than resale must be labeled with an alterer's label. When a new chassis is installed in a vehicle, this is not an alteration, but rather, it is the manufacture of a new motor vehicle. Therefore, section 568.8 would not apply. The other provisions of Part 568 relating to the manufacture of a new motor vehicle would apply to this reconstructed vehicle. The person undertaking the remanufacture would be treated like the original manufacturer of the vehicle and would be required to certify it for compliance with the standards.

5. Standards promulgated after 1975 that are specifically applicable to school buses are: Standard No. 217-76, Bus Window Retention and Release, Standard No. 220, School Bus Rollover Protection, Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, and Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity. Many of the other safety standards apply to school buses as well as other vehicles. I am enclosing a sheet detailing the applicability of Federal safety standards. All Federal safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 571. By examining the standards in Part 571, you can ascertain when their most recent amendment has occurred.

ID: nht89-3.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/28/89

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- DEPUTY DIRECTOR TIRE DIVISION RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/01/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO FRANK E. TIMMONS -- RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, REDBOOK A34, STANDARD 109, PART 575.104; LETTER DATED 08/30/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO E. H. GALLOWAY -- UNIFORM T IRE QUALITY GRADING TEST FACILITY, RE INFLATION PRESSURES FOR TRACTION GRADING PROCEDURES IN UTQGS

TEXT: Dear Sir:

On behalf of domestic manufacturers of tires, the RMA requests that you reconsider the NHTSA position taken in your August 30, 1989 letter to E. H. Galloway concerning UTQG traction test inflation pressures. Your interpretation that metric designated ti res (including P-metric tires) which are labeled for maximum pressure in both kilopascals (kPa) and common english (psi) units should be treated the same as those labeled with english values only is contrary to long standing industry interpretation and p ractice.

The following is offered in support of our request:

1. All tires designed using the metric system are required by FMVSS 109, para. S4,3,4(a) to show not only kPa pressure information, but the equivalent value in english units (psi) in parenthesis. Thus, no tires can be sold or offered for sale in the U. S. market with pressures specified only in kilopascals.

2. Load Range B alpha-numeric and numeric tires are labeled 32 psi maximum inflation pressure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 24 psi. Standard load P-metric tires are labeled 240 kPa (35 psi) maximum inflation pre ssure as required by FMVSS 109. The design test pressure for these tires is 180 kPa (26 psi). Since P-metric tires are normally used at slightly higher pressures by consumers in accordance with vehicle manufacturers recommendations, it is logical that they be tested at slightly higher pressures.

3. Industry and private testing organizations have been testing P metric tires for UTQG traction using 180 kPa at the NHTSA test facility in San Angelo, Texas for 10 years with no prior comment from NHTSA.

4. In summary, our members sincerely believe the intent of the regulation is to test alpha-numeric tires at 24 psi and P-metric tires at 180 kPa. We ask your timely reconsideration of your August 30, 1989, interpretation to minimize confusion within th e industry.

5. NHTSA has specified variations in test pressures for UTQG treadwear and temperature tests and in FMVSS 109 bead unseating, tire strength, tire endurance and high speed tests to accommodate the differences between P- metric (240 kPa) and alpha numeric /numeric (32 psi) tires. The same philosophy should apply to traction testing.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-8.25

DATE: November 22, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Bob Carver -- Wayne Wheeled Vehicles

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/01/93 Est. from Bob Carver (OCC-9218)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you referred to this agency's final rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 217, Bus Emergency Exits and Window Retention and Release, dated November 2, 1992 (57 FR 49413). Specifically, you referred to S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS 217, as amended, and asked whether it was necessary to outline an emergency roof exit with retroreflective tape even though the tape would not be visible unless the bus is tilted on its side. You also asked whether the tape width requirement will be changed to 1 inch.

As you correctly quoted in your letter, S5.5.3(c) of FMVSS 217, as amended by our final rule of November 2, 1992, provides:

Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a minimum 3 centimeters wide retroreflective tape, either red, white, or yellow in color, that when tested under the conditions specified in S6.1 of 571.131, meets the criteria specified in Table 1.

The plain language of this provision requires every school bus emergency exit required by the standard to be outlined by the retroreflective tape, including required roof exits. No exceptions are provided in the standard.

I note that the November 1992 final rule required additional emergency exits for school buses, but provided manufacturers various options from which to choose. Roof exits were specified as one option because of their potential safety benefits in rollover situations where the bus comes to rest on its side. Further, roof exits could also serve as potential exit routes where other exit routes were either unavailable or inoperative. The retroreflective tape requirement was intended to increase the conspicuity of emergency exits in low-light situations. In a situation where a bus is resting on its side, the increased conspicuity of a roof exit could be critical for safety.

With regard to the width of the tape, we proposed a 1-inch retroreflective tape in the NPRM. However, in the final rule that 1 inch measurement was inadvertently converted to 3 cm rather than the correct 2.5 cm. We are in the process of issuing a technical amendment to the final rule which will specify that the tape must be not less than 2.5 cm (1 inch) in width rather than 3 cm.

I hope this information will be of assistance to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-3.50

DATE: May 18, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Carl W. Ruegg -- President, Carlo International, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-27-93 from Carl W. Ruegg to Niel Eisner (OCC 8513)

TEXT: This responds to your letter of March 27, 1993, to Mr. Eisner of the General Counsel's Office of the Department of Transportation (DOT). You intend to import "car parts" into the United States, and would like to know "the legal definition of a vehicle that comes within the scope of D.O.T. regulations". You assume that "a part such as fender or other body parts do not." You have asked this question because some individual parts may arrive as part of assemblies, such as "chassis and body assembly or perhaps chassis and body plus front & rear axle transmissions."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component of DOT that regulates the importation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, principally through the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued under its authority such as the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). Each part or component of a motor vehicle is motor vehicle equipment subject to NHTSA's jurisdiction.

The Act requires that motor vehicle equipment, whether new or used, meet all applicable FMVSS in order to be imported into the U.S. Some of the FMVSS apply to items of motor vehicle equipment. Thus, whether shipped separately or as part of an assembly, equipment such as brake hoses, tires, brake fluid, rims for vehicles other than passenger cars, glazing, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers must comply in order to be admitted into this country.

As your question implies, there is a point at which an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment becomes a "motor vehicle". An assemblage becomes an "incomplete motor vehicle" subject to regulation as a vehicle manufactured in two or more stages (49 CFR Part 568) when it consists, at a minimum, of "frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle (Sec. 568.3)." As the intention is to import the vehicle without the electric power train, the assemblage you contemplate is not a "motor vehicle" and remains an assemblage of motor vehicle equipment whose individual components, as noted in the preceding paragraph, are required to comply with the applicable FMVSS.

Your letter informs us that "(t)hese parts and partial assembly's (sic) would be sold as kits for conversion to electric vehicle." When the power train is added, the person completing the manufacture of the vehicle is considered to be its manufacturer, required to certify compliance with all applicable FMVSS.

If you have any further questions, we would be pleased to answer them.