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: 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: nht74-2.11

DATE: 08/19/74

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

TO: Dura Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Dura Corporation's July 24, 1974, questions whether S5.6 of Standard No. 121, Air brake systems, requires parking brakes on air suspension liftable axles, and whether the "no lockup" requirements of the standard apply to a liftable axle on a "tandem axle rig".

The parking brake performance options of S5.6 do not require parking brakes on an air suspension liftable axle such as you describe. S5.6.2 requires only that the parking brakes installed on a vehicle meet minimum performance levels. S5.6.1 requires parking brake retardation force on "an axle other than a steerable front axle". We do not consider this requirement to apply to an axle which is not on the ground when the parking brake system is activated.

The standard's "no lockup" requirement (S5.3.1) applies to

"any wheel at speeds above 10 mph except for . . .

(b) Lockup of wheels on nonsteerable axles other than the two rearmost nonliftable, nonsteerable axles on a vehicle with more than two nonsteerable axles.

Under this provision, if a vehicle has two nonliftable, nonsteerable axles at the rear which do not lock up (such as an antilock-equipped tandem axle rig) it may be equipped with a liftable nonsteerable axle which does not meet the "no lockup" requirements.

Yours truly,

July 24, 1974

Sidney F. Williams -- Office of Operating Systems, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Sir:

Dura Corporation is presently involved in manufacturing add-on liftable axle/suspension assemblies which are marketed with OEM and body builders. Due to the impending effectivity dates of FMVSS 121 we are presently preparing to equip our products to comply. Our liftable airide axle/suspension assemblies are applicable to both pusher and tag situations.

The intent of this letter is to request an official interpretation of FMVSS 121. Our present understanding of the standard is as follows:

An anti-lock system will be required with the add-on axle/suspension if added to a single axle rig but not required if added to a tandem axle rig.

II. An emergency/parking spring brake will not be required with the add-on axle/suspension. This supposition is based on a loss of air pressure will automatically lift the axle rendering the spring brake inoperable.

Please indicate if the above statements are correct. Your consideration and cooperation in this matter is truly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Raymond E. Jones, Project Engineer -- DURA CORPORATION

cc: W. Locke

ID: nht74-2.32

DATE: 02/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kar-Kraft, Inc.

COPYEE: PESKOE; COMPTON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated December 6, 1973, in which you ask whether there is a distinction between the reference to the "lowest seating position" for motorcycles in S5.1.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, and the reference to "lowest seating surface" in proposed "Fields of Direct View" (Docket No. 70-7; Notice 2; 37 FR 7210, April 12, 1972). You also request an explanation for the difference between the reference to 15 inches above the seating surface in Standard No. 205, and 18 inches in Docket No. 70-7.

The notice in Docket No. 70-7, as you may know, has been withdrawn (38 FR 6194, March 7, 1973). However, we would consider the phrase "lowest seating position" to be synonymous with "lowest seating surface" with respect to these particular items. The 18-inch requirement proposed in Docket No. 70-7 represented a more recent evaluation than the 15-inch requirement in Standard No. 105 of the minimum desirable area for motorcycle visibility. Had that requirement become effective the agency would have taken steps to ensure that the requirements were consistent with each other.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

December 6, 1973

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of the Chief Council, N. H. T. S. A.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

In a recent conversation with your Mr. Peskoe, I asked a question relative to FMVSS 205 which Mr. Peskoe advised would best be asked in written form to which your office would make a prompt reply.

Accordingly, my question is this:

In FMVSS 205, Glazing Materials, at S5.1.2.1 "Safety plastic materials . . . may be used in a motor vehicle only in the following specific location at levels not requisite for driving visibility.

(b) Motorcycle windscreens below the intersection of a horizontal plane 15 inches vertically above the lowest seating position."

Additionally, in Docket 70-7, Notice 2, Paragraph S10.1 it says: "There shall be no obstructions forward of the forwardmost point of the driver's seat that are above a horizontal plane 18 inches above the lowest seating surface of the driver's seat . . ."

Specifically, what is the definition of the "lowest seating position" in FMVSS 205 and lowest seating surface in Docket 70-7 and what accounts for the difference in the 15 inch and 18 inch dimensions?

We look forward to your prompt reply in this matter.

Sincerely,

KAR-KRAFT, INC.;

L. A. Volberding -- Administrative Manager

ID: nht78-1.16

DATE: 02/14/78

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

TO: M. H. Hollaway

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

Tires manufactured for use on passenger cars or other motor vehicles designed principally for highway use must comply with all Federal regulations applicable to those tires. Tires designed for use on farm vehicles, on the other hand, are not required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

Under section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) a dealer may not "knowingly render inoperative" a device installed on a motor vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. A dealer who removes properly certified passenger car tires from an automobile and replaces them with tires that are specified for farm use would be in violation of section 108 in that the complying tires would have essentially been rendered inoperative by his actions. Section 108 does not apply to private individuals. Thus, a car owner would not be in violation of the law if he accomplished the tire replacement himself. Such action would be highly inadvisable, however, since these restricted use tires are not constructed in compliance with standards that ensure a minimum safe level of performance for highway operation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

September 16, 1977

Department of Transportation Washington, D. C. 20013

Gentlemen;

Will you please answer the following question?

Is it unlawful to use tires on a passenger car that are marked "Farm tires"?

These tires are passenger car type tires with white sidewalls. However, a local tire store refused to install them because of the markings.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours Truly,

M. H. Hollaway

MARCH 7, 1978

M. H. Holloway

Dear Mr. Holloway:

This is in further reply to your September 16, 1977, letter asking whether it is illegal to mount a tire labeled "Farm Tire" on a passenger car.

We inadvertently neglected to point out in our February 14, 1978, response to your letter that any tire which is marked with a Department of Transportation (DOT) symbol is presumed to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to it. Any tire with such a symbol may therefore be mounted on a motor vehicle without violation of Section 108 (a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act when the former tires are removed, regardless of the appearance of words associating the tire with farm use.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

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: nht78-3.17

DATE: 09/27/78

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

TO: Wayne Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether Safety Standard No. 208 applies to side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicle vans. You also ask to be advised of the criteria to be used for the installation of seat belts in these vehicles.

Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, does require side-facing seats in multipurpose passenger vehicles to comply with one of the options under paragraph S4.2.2, since the side-facing seats in question would be considered designated seating positions. If a manufacturer chooses to install seat belts under one of the options of that paragraph, the seat belt assemblies must comply with Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Anchorages.

Safety Standard No. 210 does exempt side-facing seats from its strength requirements, but all other requirements of the standard would be applicable. However, we strongly recommend that belt anchorages for side-facing seats be of at least equivalent strength to anchorages for forward and rearward facing seats, since the strength specifications are only minimum performance requirements. Side-facing seats were excepted from the strength requirements specified in the standard because the forces acting on side-facing seats are different from those acting on forward or rearward facing seats and the requirements and procedures were specifically developed for these latter seats.

Please contact this office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Wayne Corporation

August 24, 1978

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

Gentlemen:

The Wayne Corporation manufacturers small buses (GVWR 10,000 lbs. and under), Busette and Transette, which have a normal passenger capacity of 16 to 20 passengers.

Some of these buses are equipped to accommodate transporting the handicapped. In some of these cases, the operators' requirements for lifts, wheelchair anchorage devices, side facing seats, etc., reduced the passenger capacity to less than 10 persons, in which case the vehicle becomes, for purpose of Federal Certification, a multipurpose passenger vehicle rather than a bus.

Which, if any, of the requirements of FMVSS 208, Passenger Crash Protection, apply to side facing seats installed in the MPV discussed above?

If you should find that S4.1.2.3 of FMVSS 208 applies at the option of the manufacturer, please advise the criteria to be used for the installation of the seat belts, taking into consideration that all current seat belt requirements relate only to forward and rearward facing seats.

Robert B. Kurre Director of Engineering

ID: 86-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dave Trowbridge

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sale Creation Windows of Indiana, Inc. P.O. Box 1046 Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Mr. Trowbridge:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1986, with reference to a design for a center high-mounted stop lamp intended for pickup covers or shells. You have asked for our advice regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars, and its specifications apply only to original or replacement equipment on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. There are no requirements for aftermarket applications such as you envision. The legality of your device would be determined under the laws of a State where the lamp is installed or used.

We would recommend, however, that you attempt to conform your device as closely as possible to Federal requirements, such as an illuminated lens area of not less than 4 square inches, and mounted in such a manner as to minimize reflections in the rear glass. A copy of the Federal standard is enclosed.

I hope that this answers your questions. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 25, 1986 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Assn. 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of custom windows and doors for the recreational vehicle market, automotive aftermarket and second party vehicle manufacturers. Of particular concern is our production and design of the "3rd stop light" to our door assemblies for pickup cover doors (see attached).

Our doors are supplied to manufacturers of these covers or shells and will be supplied with this added safety feature.

Your assistance, at your earliest possible convenience, is appreciated in advance regarding those pertinent and applicable NHTSA, FMVSS or other specifications that may apply to the mounting of this light assembly to the inside of the door assemblies we manufacture for our customers. The light assembly itself will be either sourced or manufactured with concern for those specifications that may apply to the light and its visibility, wiring, etc.

Cordially, Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sales

DT/jb

Attachment

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: 1985-04.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/22/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Susan B. House -- House Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Ms. Susan B. House House Enterprises 1450 Woodscliff Drive Anderson, IN 46011

Thank you for your letter of November 7, 1985, inquiring about the Federal safety standards that apply to two solar glare shading products you have developed. You described the first product as an 8" diameter acrylic dish which is of optical quality and tinted. The second products is a 4" x 4" sheet of opaque plastic. You explained that both products are designed to be attached to a vehicle's windows by suction cups. The following discussion explains how our safety standards apply to your products.

Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, we have issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing used in vehicles. These requirements include specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70% in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

No manufacturer or dealer is permitted to install solar films and other sun screen devices, such as the ones described in your letter, in new vehicles without certifying that the vehicle continues to be in compliance with the light transmittance and other requirements of the standard.

After a vehicle is first sold to a consumer, modifications to a vehicle are affected ny section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act. That section prohibits commercial businesses from tampering with safety equipment installed on a vehicle in compliance with our standards. Thus, no dealer, manufacturer, repair business or distributor can install a sun screen device for the owner of the vehicle, if the device would cause the window not to meet the requirements of Standard No 205. Violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) can result in Federal civil penalties of up to $1,000 for each violation.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect vehicle owners, who may may themselves alter their vehicles as they please, so long as they adhere to all State requirements. Under Federal law, the owner may install sun screening devices regardless of whether the installation adversely affects the light transmittance. Individual States govern the operational use of vehicles by their owners and therefore it is within the authority of the States to preclude owners from using sun screens in their vehicles.

If you need further information, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel