ID: nht88-3.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/19/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL SCULLY -- VICE PRESIDENT PETERSON MANUFACTURING CO.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 04/22/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES, FROM PAUL SCULLY RE INTERPRETATION OF EFFECTIVE PROJECTED LUMINOUS AREA, OCC - 1946

TEXT: Dear Mr. Scully:

This is in reply to your letter of April 22, 1988, asking for a clarification of a letter that this Office sent Wesbar Corporation on March 16, 1988, with respect to the term "effective projected luminous area."

Wesbar had asked whether it could include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" (Wesbar's language) in its calculation of the 12 square inch minimum effective projected luminous area required by S4.1 .17 of Safety Standard No. 108. We replied that it could, assuming that the light shines through the reflector. You have pointed out that although a small amount of light escapes through a reflex reflector, the reflector is designed to return light fro m an outside source, rather than to direct light from a source inside the lamp, and that heretofore agency interpretations (e.g. on October 28, 1970, and October 28, 1979) had expressly excluded reflex reflectors from areas included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. Reflex reflectors are also excluded from the term by SAE J387 Terminology.

We appreciate your calling this matter to our attention. Previous interpretations by this Office clearly indicate that a "reflex reflector" is not to be included in the calculation of effective projected luminous area. We also note that the SAE definit ion (paragraph 2, SAE J594f,

January 1977) is incorporated by reference into Standard No. 108, stating that this item of equipment is one that provides an indication of vehicle presence by reflected light (rather than projected light). We are providing a copy of this letter to Wesbar so that it will be apprised of our reevaluation, and our conclusion that the reflex reflector portion of a lens cannot be included in the calculations of the projected luminous lens area.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

Sincerely,

ID: nht93-5.14

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 8, 1993

FROM: Durin B. Rogers -- Legal Assistant, Saperston & Day

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/18/93 from John Womack to Durin B. Rogers (A41; Std. 205; VSA 103(d); Redbook 4); Also attached to letter dated 7/1/91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Richard E. Wright (Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 11/29/84 from Frank Berndt to Wayne Ivie (Std. 205)

TEXT:

I am writing to request your assistance with regard to a legal matter within our office at this time.

According to Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations S571.205 (otherwise known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205, Glazing Materials), certain motor vehicles operating on land highways are required to use windows made of treated "safety glass" or tempered glass to reduce the likelihood of shattering, as well as to minimize the possibility of vehicle occupants being thrown through a window during a collision. More specifically, I am interested in the glazing material requirements for side windows in what are known as "fifth wheel campers/trailers." Although Section 5.1.1 of Standard #205 designates that such requirements should conform to the American National Standard Safety Code for safety glazing materials for motor vehicles operating on land highways (Z-26.1, 1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1(a), July 3, 1980), it fails to specify what grade or specification of glass is required for each window's location. For your information, the replacement side window was allegedly purchased from a manufacturer in Indiana in June 1987, and installed within a fifth wheel camper registered in the State of New York. Enclosed, for your reference, are copies of photographs of the subject camper.

Would you please research this issue and confirm what specific glazing requirements, if any, are applicable to side windows within fifth wheel vehicles, and whether any federal or industrial regulations exist which would require future window replacements and/or repairs to be made of such glass?

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Attachment

(Photos omitted)

ID: GF004197

Mr. Robert Babcock
Manager, Corporate Affairs
Hyundai America Technical Center, Inc.
5075 Venture Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48108




Dear Mr. Babcock:

This responds to your letter regarding applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact, to items attached to a floor-mounted console. You specifically ask about a foldable video monitor that is attached to the console. Our answer is the monitor you depict would be excluded.

FMVSS No. 201 establishes performance requirements designed to reduce the risk of injury in the event an occupant strikes the interior of a vehicle during a crash. Specifically, certain areas within the vehicle must be properly padded or otherwise have energy absorbing properties to minimize head injury in the event of a crash. Head impact protection performance is determined, in part, by testing specific targets on the vehicle interior.

S5.1.1(a) of FMVSS No. 201 excludes console assemblies from the head impact protection requirements of the standard. Although console assemblies are not defined in FMVSS No. 201, they commonly refer to low-lying structures mounted on the vehicle floor between the front seats. You ask if the exclusion in S5.1.1(a) would apply to a foldable video monitor attached to the console.

The height of a console assembly is not limited by our standards. If the monitor were permanently incorporated into the console in the protruded position, it would be considered part of the console and excluded from the standard even though the height of the console would be unusually high. The fact that the monitor you are considering can fold to a "stored" position does not have a bearing on whether the monitor is part of the console. We consider a video monitor attached to the console to be part of the console even when it is foldable.

If you need further assistance, please contact George Feygin of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:201
d.7/7/05

ID: nht73-5.44

DATE: 11/05/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Roy Stolpestad

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 11, 1973, concerning the 1966 Chrysler you recently purchased from Central Motors in Minneapolis. As Miss Porter correctly pointed out in her column, the Federal law on odometer fraud enables you to bring a civil action against Central. The amount of recovery in such an action can be substantial. If the court were to accept your estimate of damages of $ 1490.24, the damages assessable under Federal law would be three times that amount $ 4470.72. In no case would damages be less than $ 1500, a minimum value established by law. In addition, if you are successful, Central must pay your attorney fees as well as all court costs.

I appreciate your concern for the costs of litigation. However, by providing for the payment of attorney fees the odometer law places you in a better position than a personal injury litigant whose recovery is usually diminished by his attorney's contingency fee. Your best course at this point is therefore to retain counsel if Central persists in its refusal to reimburse you.

By way of advice to your attorney, I would point out that the "out" that Central claims to have taken -- checking the box on the disclosure form that indicates the true mileage is unknown -- was taken too late to be of benefit to them. The Federal regulation governing disclosure requires the disclosure statement to be made "before executing any transfer of ownership form." If they mailed the statement the next day, their disclosure was untimely. Moreover, the representations made in the newspaper advertisment are evidentiary of their representation of 33,000 miles as being the true mileage on the vehicle. Your success in finding the previous

owner is also useful in establishing that the actual mileage was greater than shown.

We will be willing to give you or your attorney further advice if questions arise concerning the intent and effect of the Federal odometer law. The enclosed copies of the law and regulations are provided to assist him in representing you.

ENC.

ID: nht73-2.46

DATE: 12/10/73

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

TO: Hyattsvile Auto Glass

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your November 29, 1973, request to know if urethane bonding material must be used in the installation of windshields in new motor vehicles not yet sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale.

Standard 212, Windshield mounting, is a performance standard for new motor vehicles. We do not require the use of specific bonding materials such as urethane, but only that the vehicle conform to Standard 212, whatever material is used. The New York suit you mentioned may involve a question of due care in the installation of the windshield, separate from the question of meeting a Federal minimum performance standard.

YOURS TRULY,

IHyattsville Auto Glass

NOVEMBER 29, 1973

ROBERT DYSON ASST. CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HWY. SAFETY STANDARDS

DEAR MR. DYSON:

AFTER TALKING WITH YOU BY TELEPHONE ABOUT A STATEMENT MADE BY GENERAL MOTORS IN ONE OF THEIR BULLETINS ON THE USING OF URETHANE TO INSTALL WINDSHEILDS, I WAS TOLD OF A GLASS SHOP IN NEW YORK THAT IS BEING SUED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T USE URETHANE IN THE INSTALLATION OF A WINDSHEILD OF A 1974 MODEL VEHICLE THAT WAS INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT SAFETY STANDARD 212 ONLY PERTAINS TO NEW VEHICLES NOT HAVING BEEN SOLD, AS WAS EXPLAINED IN YOUR LETTER OF JULY 20, 1972. IS THERE ANY REGULATION THAT SAYS THAT A WINDSHEILD BEING INSTALLED IN A NEW 1974 MODEL VEHICLE (ONE NOT SOLD TO A FIRST PURCHASER) HAS TO BE INSTALLED WITH URETHANE BONDING MATERIAL? OR ARE WE STILL ALLOWED TO USE THE BONDING MATERIAL OF OUR CHOICE AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS TO STANDARD 212?

I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE YOU CAN GIVE US BECAUSE OF THE APPARENT HAZARDS AND LENGTH OF CURING TIME WE DON'T WANT TO USE URETHANE UNLESS WE ARE REQUIRED TO BY YOUR DEPARTMENT.

AGAIN I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE ASSISTANCE YOU HAVE GIVEN US IN THIS AS IN PREVIOUS MATTERS.

SINCERLY YOURS

ROBERT WOOD PUBLIC RELATIONS

ID: nht74-3.39

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Rozner and Yorty

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 26, 1974, request for information on seat belt regulations as they concern reclining passenger seats.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires passenger cars to be equipped with seat belt assemblies, but it does not contain performance requirements to regulate the effectiveness of the belt assembly with the seating system in the reclining position.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, specifies minimum safety requirements for motor vehicle seats. The requirements of the standard are based on conventional seat designs that normally incorporate a seat back angle of approximately 25 degrees rearward inclination from the vertical. Standard No. 207 requires that reclining seats be tested in their most upright position and does not require seats to be tested in the reclining position.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 preempts state motor vehicle safety regulations which are not identical to the Federal standards with regard to the same aspect of performance and therefore any state law would be identical to Standards Nos. 207 and 208 on these aspects of performance (15 U.S.C. @ 1392 (d)).

The engineering staff is not aware of any studies in the area of seat belts and reclining seats.

Yours truly,

ROZNER AND YORTY

March 26, 1974

National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Re: Three point restraint on reclining passenger seat

Gentlemen:

I represent a passenger who was injured while she was sleeping in a bed-like reclining passenger seat. She slid out the back. She had a conventional seat belt on, but it did not help.

Are there any regulations either in the past or the future that would apply to this situation, either State or Federal? Have there been any studies on this subject or any interest in this subject. I shall appreciate whatever help you can give me.

Very truly yours,

William A. Goichman

ID: nht79-2.15

DATE: 10/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Continental Products Corp.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

October 1, 1979

Mr. William G. Finn Operations Manager Continental Products Corp. 1200 Wall Street West Lyndhurst, New Jersey 07071

Dear Mr. Finn:

This is in response to your letter of September 7, 1979, asking whether tire sidewall molding, required by the Uniform Tire Quality Grading (UTQG) Standards (49 CFR 575.104), may be accomplished using characters with a height of 6.5 millimeters, rather than 5/32nds of an inch as stated in the regulation (49 CFR 575.104, Figure 1). You also ask whether UTQG sidewall moldings must appear on both sides of the tire.

The specification of 5/32-inch tire sidewall characters was intended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish a minimum requirement to assure readability of the UTQG information presented. The agency has no objection to the use of characters of a height greater than 5/32nds of an inch, e.g., 6.5 millimeters, so long as all characters used to convey UTQG information are of the same height. UTQG information need be molded on only one sidewall of the tire.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 7, 1979

Mr. Hipolit - Legal Department National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Hipolit:

Per our telephone conversation of September 5, please let us know the answers to the following questions regarding the UTQG law which goes into effect for radial tires on March 1, 1980.

1. Can the lettering molded into the side-wall of the tire be 6.5 mm high?

2. Must these markings be molded on both sides of the tire, or is one side sufficient?

Your prompt reply would be most appreciated, and we thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

William G. Finn Operations Manager

WGF:jld

ID: nht87-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dr. Ernst; Hella KG Hueck & Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dr. Ernst Hella KG Hueck & Co Postfach 28 40 4780 Lippstadt GERMANY

Dear Dr. Ernst:

This is in reply to your letter of February 5, 1987, to Richard Van Iderstine of this agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards. You have asked for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to a new headlamp manufactured by Hella that BMW has installed on a new car which it introduced in the United States around April 1, 1987.

The headlamp is of the replaceable bulb type, and as you describe it consists of two additional parts: "the housing, to which the cover lens is bonded by means of a two "component adhesive", and 'the optical module, consisting of the reflector and the convex lens, joined by the lens carrier...." In your words, "The two parts are held together by three screws", and you believe that "the two parts, firmly screwed together, are as effectively joined as would be the case if bonded".

Paragraph S3 of Standard No. 108 defines a "replaceable bulb headlamp" in pertinent part as "a headlamp comprising a bonded lens and reflector assembly. . . ." In the Hella design, the lens and reflector assembly are not bonded, and thus the headlamp is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp" that is permissible for use on motor vehicles sold and used in the Unite States. The intent of the definition is to ensure that the headlamp lens and reflector are an integral replaceable unit, since that is the only means to assure a mechanically aimable replaceable bulb headlamp which is capable of using any replacement standardized replaceable light source and meets the necessary photometric performance. The foundation of mechanical aimability is that the beam and aiming pads are manufactured to have a specific relationship. If this relationship is altered by replacement of the lens only, or of the reflector only, there is a high likelihood that the lamp may not meet minimum performance requirements when aimed mechanically.

ID: nht87-1.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Allen R. Tank

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Allen R. Tank President Minikin 606 NE Lincoln Avenue St. Cloud, MN 56301

Dear Mr. Tank:

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1986, with respect to the definition of "motorcycle" for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked whether a vehicle with two wheels at the front, and one at the rear with two tires mounted on it, would still be regarded as a motorcycle.

The definition of a motorcycle is "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." This is technically inaccurate in part because wheels do not contact the ground. I believe that the drafter of the definition meant to say "tires" rather than "wheels." Thus the configuration about which you have asked is one in which four tires contact the ground, and we therefore conclude that such a vehi cle would not be regarded as a motorcycle.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm. 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

I have communicated with George Shifflett in the Department regarding our three wheel vehicle. According to your standards, we are governed by the laws specifically addressed to motorcycles. The question was raised, if the three wheel vehicle had two whe els in the front with one in the rear, the rear rim having two tires mounted on it, would it still be regarded as a motorcycle.. I have enclosed three photos that will visually explain our proposed application.

I would appreciate your opinion on the additional tire effect on our motorcycle classification.

Sincerely,

Allen R. Tank President

cc: George Shifflett

ID: 9123

Mr. Jack McIntyre
Vice President
Tie Tech Inc.
Post Office Box 5226
Lynnwood, WA 98046-5226

Dear Mr. McIntyre:

This responds to your letter in which you withdrew your petition for rulemaking of August 18, 1993, and requested an agency interpretation instead.

You referred to the final rule issued by this agency on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4585), which amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222. Specifically, paragraph S5.4.2.(a)(1) of the amendment provides that wheelchair securement devices composed of webbing or straps must meet the requirements for Type I safety belt systems specified in S4.2, among others, of FMVSS 209. You stated that there is no need to specify a minimum width for wheelchair securement belts and that the current industry standard for securement belts is a 1-inch polyester belt. Finally, you stated that the 1-inch polyester belts have less stretch than the 1.8-inch nylon belts and that the 1-inch belts are easier and less cumbersome to connect to a wheelchair.

Paragraph S4.2(a), FMVSS 209, provides that seat belt webbing cannot be less than 1.8 inches wide, "except for portions that do not touch a 95th percentile adult male with the seat in any adjustment position and the seat back in the manufacturer's nominal design riding position . . . ." That means that seat belt webbing must be at least 1.8 inches wide whenever it touches the person of the seat occupant. The width of webbed wheel chair securement belts that do not touch the persons of the chair occupants is not specified in any standard. Therefore, wheel chair securement belts can be 1 inch or some other width, so long as they do not touch the persons of the chair occupants and meet the other requirements of applicable standards.

I hope this clarifies this matter for you. If you have any further questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:209#222#571 d:11/23/93