ID: nht75-6.19

DATE: 01/01/75 EST

FROM: ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR MOTOR VEHICLE PROGRAMS

TO: J.W. KENNEBECK -- EMISSIONS, SAFETY & DEVELOPMENT VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Kennebeck:

This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition for rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.

Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive belt system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.

Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warning provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.

Our January 16 letter states "additional [safety] devices could not be installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply." This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.

For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additional warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.

Sincerely,

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: nht74-4.41

DATE: 01/11/74

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

TO: Corner Sterling & Machell Avenues

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 21, 1973 to "U.S. Bureau of Safety" expressing your view that "the automobile industry should . . . have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the (power) window meets any resistance."

I enclose a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems which has applied to all passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles with power windows manufactured since February 1, 1971. The objective of the standard is to minimize the likelihood of injury or death occurring when a person is caught between a closing window and its frame, channel, or seat. The NHTSA determined that the most cost-effective way to accomplish this objective was by prohibiting operation of power windows when the ignition key is either in the ignition "off" position or removed. As you will see from the enclosure, consideration was given to mechanisms that would reverse the direction of the window.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ENC.

December 11, 1973

Dr. Irvin Jacobs, M.D.

The circumstance and comment in your letter of November 21, 1973, regarding automatic window closing operation is noted. The matter is deemed to be in the jurisdiction of the U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Therefore, we are forwarding your letter with a copy of this acknowledgement to DOT for their attention and an appropriate reply.

JOHN J. KLOCKO Chief, Materials Handling Technology Center

cc: FMSMUSS-118 U.S. Dept. of Transportation

November 21, 1973

U. S. Bureau of Safety Washington D. C.

Gentlemen:

Recently one of our young patients was brought in after having his head caught in the window of a car door after the automatic window closing operation had been started. Fortunately, this was not a serious accident; however, it could have been.

It seems the automobile industry should be prevailed upon to have some type of clutch to reverse action when the closing motion of the window meets any resistance.

Sincerely,

IRVIN JACOBS, M.D.

ID: nht76-1.7

DATE: 02/26/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Alaska Traffic Safety Bureau

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to a request by Mr. William Hall, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regional Administrator for Region X, for a review of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems with special consideration of the comments of Mr. Robertson in his memorandum of November 24, 1975.

It is the opinion of this agency that Standard No. 104 is appropriate for the State of Alaska. The essential feature of a wiping system, as far as safety is concerned, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are washed and wiped. These areas are established in the standard and are determined by the angles from the driver's eye position over which the windshield must be kept clear to provide a proper field of view. While targets of driver attention and environmental conditions may differ from state to state, if the critical areas are clear, the field of view provided to the driver is sufficient. The 1976 Scirocco appears to provide the required field of view.

The question therefore becomes whether the Federal standard on windshield wipers is intended to cover all aspects of wiping systems. If so, the situation is analogous to that presented to the court in Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger, No. CIV S74-126 (E.D.Cal. 1974) which resulted in a holding that Standard No. 108 did preempt an inconsistent state regulation in the field of lighting requirements. The NHTSA has determined that the standard on windshield wiping systems, No. 104, is intended to leave the number of wipers to the discretion of the manufacturers. Under Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), and Chrysler v. Tofany, 419 F2d 499, 511-12 (2d Cir, 1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is "of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Thus, a state regulation differing from the standard would impair the Federal superintendence of the field within the meaning of the doctrine set forth in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963) and be preempted under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, U.S.C. 1392(d).

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: nht90-2.65

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/31/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: SUICHI WATANABE -- GENERAL MANAGER AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING ENGINEERING CONTROL DEPARTMENT STANLEY ELECTRIC CO., LTD.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 03/19/90 FROM SHUICHI WATANABE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 4549

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 19, 1990, asking whether a new combination rear lamp is permitted under Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The lamp consists of three compartments. In its normal operating mode, when the taillamp and/or stop lamp are activated, all three compartments show a red light. Your question arises with respect to three different operating modes. The first occurs whe n the turn signal is activated; the red light in one of the compartments is replaced by an amber flashing one. The second occurs when the backup lamp is activated; the red light in another of the compartments is replaced by a white steady-burning one. The third occurs when both the backup lamp and turn signal are activated; in this event, the combination lamp would present an amber flashing light, a red steady-burning one, and a white steady-burning one. You have informed us that "the requirement of photometric and lighted area for each lamp function comply to FMVSS No. 108 and related comply with requirements for one and three compartment lamps when operating with one or three compartments (we assume that they would also meet the requirements for t wo compartment lamps).

The lamp appears to be intended to fulfill the requirements of Standard No. 108 for turn signal, stop, tail, and backup lamps. Thus, your question appears to be whether Standard No. 108 requires separate lamps or compartments dedicated to a specific pur pose, or whether your multiple purpose lamp is acceptable.

Standard No. 108 does not prohibit a combination of the functions that any chamber of your lamp provides. When a specific function is activated, the lamp will perform that particular function in a manner that appears to meet the minimum standard establi shed by Standard No. 108. Assuming that the CIE color definitions for white, amber, and red are met by the backup, turn, and stop/tail functions, the lamp appears to be permissible under Standard No. 108.

Sincerely,

ID: nht92-4.22

DATE: 09/01/92 EST

FROM: PAUL GOULD -- SENIOR ENGINEER, FRICTION MATERIALS, LUCAS HEAVY DUTY BRAKING SYSTEM

TO: PAUL RICE -- NHTSA

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-19-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO PAUL GOULD (A40; STD. 121)

TEXT: I have recently been conducting dynamometer tests to FMVSS 121, here at Cwmbran, and I have some questions which I would like to pose to you as a matter of clarification on the actual meaning of "Average deceleration Rate" and its tolerance.

Taking the Brake Power Test, as an example, the FMVSS states: S5.4.2 "shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average of 9fpsps".

When conducting such tests on our dynamometers, we would carry these out in Constant Torque Mode. The dynamometer is given a deceleration to achieve, and the pressure is modulated around that figure depending on the frictional variations during the stop.

For the Brake Power Test, the dynamometer would attempt to achieve 2.7 m/s2 (in SI units) or 26.49%g.

A typical result obtained from out tests is: Stop 1 26.55%g Stop 2 26.17%g Stop 3 25.93%g Stop 4 26.10%g Stop 5 26.13%g Stop 6 26.05%g Stop 7 25.85%g Stop 8 25.96%g Stop 9 25.94%g Stop 10 25.63%g

This represents a control capability to within 5% (although on the low side).

The FMVSS does not however state this either as a minimum or maximum deceleration.

The points on which I require clarification are:

1) Results presented in this way appear to be lower than required for FMVSS, however, given that only a 5% shift exists are these acceptable, bearing in mind that the more crucial requirements are the pressure limitations and the Hot Stop deceleration rate.

2) It is my interpretation that the deceleration rate is only a Target in order to fade the Linings, and to within an error of 5%, our method is acceptable, rather than aim for a higher deceleration rate, which may mean much higher average deceleration than that stated in the FMVSS. This is also not strictly correct. I also wish to add that during the testing, the pressure utilised was well within the FMVSS demands.

I am sure that it is just a matter of interpretation, but it is vital to clear this up for future testing commitments.

ID: nht93-4.51

DATE: June 28, 1993

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

TO: Eddie Bernice Johnson -- U.S. House of Representatives

COPYEE: Washington Office

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-2-93 from Eddie Bernice Johnson to Art Neill (OCC 8736).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 2, 1993, to Art Neill of this agency on behalf of your constituent, Dr. Bill Way of Dallas. Dr. Way is concerned about the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) to destroy M151 jeeps at the end of their useful military life because "for some reason the Department of Transportation has deemed (them) unsafe to be used on public roads." He finds this unusual "because if they are found to be unsafe on our roads, how can we consider these vehicles safe for use by military personnel?" Pointing out that used M151s could be sold for civilian use, he submits that "this is another waste of materials by the government."

As you know, it is the mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to improve safety upon the public roads of the United States. Over 20 years ago, NHTSA became aware of allegations regarding the tendency of the M151 jeep to roll over during turning maneuvers. DOD was aware of these allegations and provided special handling instructions to M151 operators intended to minimize the possibility of roll overs. At that time, it sought NHTSA's advice as to the proper disposition of these vehicles at the end of their useful military life.

Because the suspension systems of the M151s could not be modified and because civilian operators would not have access to the same training in handling that was provided military drivers, NHTSA advised that surplus M151s should be rendered inoperable rather than sold to the public. DOD concurred, and formulated the policy that these vehicles should be destroyed at the end of their military life. This decision involved a balancing of the competing public interests of recovery of governmental funds and safety on the nation's highways, and the latter has been found to be the predominant public interest. In the years since DOD adopted this policy, it has been reviewed by both agencies from time to time and no compelling reason has been found to change it.

ID: nht93-4.21

DATE: June 3, 1993

FROM: Richard Glover -- Director of New Product Development, Evenflo Juvenile Furniture Company, Inc.

TO: Deirdre Fujita -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/20/93 from John Womack to Richard Glover (A41; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I had attempted to call you concerning the possibility of including a bar code which could be automatically scanned at the bottom of the Car Seat Registration Card which consumers fill out. This bar code would contain model number, date of manufacturer, and serial number for the product that the card represents. We feel that by adding an automatically scanned bar code section to the card, that it will eliminate the possibility of mis- keying any of this information, in as much as the human element has been removed from the card. We would request a white section to be allowed in the portion of the card which is currently specified to be a 10 percent minimum gray scale background. I have sent you a mock up of the possible location that this bar code may reside in, for your consideration. We have noticed on the cards which are coming back to us at Evenflo so far, that if any postal damage has occurred to the card, that is very likely to occur on the bottom edge of the card. As a result of that, it may be more advantageous to move this white space into the area immediately below the area that the consumer fills in. It would be approximately the same width as the zone that the consumer fills in, and simply be a white space slightly further down into the card. It would leave the gray background around the outside perimeter of the card and would allow us space to openly print the model number, date of manufacture, and serial number in case there were any difficulties in bar code reading.

I would appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please advise us, as we are near the point of having to print additional cards at this time, and release printing lots to our printing company are at a rate of 500,000 cards per lot. If this will require a petition for a change in the current rules, please advise me so that we may petition as soon as possible. I remain,

Attachment (Child Restraint Registration Card) omitted.

ID: nht91-7.49

DATE: December 18, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Masashi Maekawa -- Director, Technical Division, Ichikoh Industries, Ltd.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-27-91 from Masashi Maekawa to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6714)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of November 27, 1991, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as it relates to a specific vehicle design.

Your letter depicts a combination tail/stop lamp that would be mounted on the deck lid ("Lamp B"), immediately adjacent to a combination tail/stop lamp that is mounted on the vehicle body ("Lamp A"). Each lamp complies with the requirement for effective projected luminous lens area, but neither complies with photometric requirements. You have asked whether, under S5.1.1.6 it is possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring the photometrics for tail and stop lamps, and, if so, whether the requirements for one or two lighted sections will apply.

S5.1.1.6 covers requirements for replacement stop lamps, and does not appear relevant to our question. We have, however, addressed before the question that you raise. It is not possible to consider the two adjacent lamps as one lamp for purposes of measuring the minimum photometrics required under Standard No. 108. We regard the lamp that is located on the body, Lamp A, as the lamp that must be designed to conform to all applicable requirements of Standard No. 108, including photometrics. In that location, Lamp A meets the requirement that stop/taillamps be located as far apart as practicable, whereas Lamp B would not. The requirements that would apply to Lamp A are those for lamps with a single lighted section. Since your letter indicates that Lamp A does not meet photometric requirements, Lamp A would be a nonconforming lamp. Lamp B is permissible as supplementary lighting equipment and need not meet the photometric or location requirements in order for the vehicle to comply with the standard. Thus, Lamp B would be permissible in its present state. (The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon supplementary lighting equipment is that it must not impair the effectiveness of required lighting equipment; that possibility does not appear to exist in this design, where the two lamps are intended as complementary).