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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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