ID: nht94-4.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 28, 1994

FROM: Richard J. Kinsey -- Manager, Fuel Economy Planning & Compliance, Ford Motor Company

TO: Ricardo Martinez -- MD, Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/8/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO RICHARD J. KINSEY (REDBOOK (2)); PART 583

TEXT: Ford Motor Company requests your concurrence on the following procedure for defining the domestic content and country of origin for foreign-sourced allied and outside supplier components.

40 CFR 583.6(c)(4)(iv) assigns zero domestic content to all passenger motor vehicle equipment which is imported into the territorial boundaries of the United States or Canada from a third country, even if part of its material originated in the United States or Canada. 40 CFR 583.7 allows the supplier to use methodologies that are used for customs purposes to determine the country of origin. Ford expects that for any imported component, both allied and outside, suppliers would report that the domest ic content is zero and the country of origin is the country of manufacture, based on the rules of substantial transformation.

Ford can obtain the same information (zero domestic content, country of manufacture, purchase price) expected to be received from our foreign suppliers from our present purchasing systems. Since the process of soliciting the supplier is costly, Ford plans to assign the domestic content and country of origin of the foreign supplied components without soliciting the data from our foreign suppliers. We are concerned that even if Ford did submit the request to foreign suppliers, that suppliers would ha ve to expend additional resources creating a document which Ford already knows the answer. Even if the foreign supplier does not respond, the domestic content and country of origin will not be any different than if they did respond. Ford believes that requiring these suppliers to respond would impose costly and unnecessary burdens on our foreign suppliers.

Ford will solicit content information from all first-tier outside suppliers of non-minor parts starting for the 1996 model year calculation.

Please contact Ron Peltier at (313) 337-5367 if you have any questions.

ID: nht94-4.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 31, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Trevor Buttle -- McLaren Cars Limited

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTERS DATED 6/30/94 AND 8/9/94 FROM TREVOR BUTTLE TO JOHN WOMACK

TEXT: This responds to your letters concerning the F1 road car manufactured by your company. The F1 has a unique seating configuration, with the driver's seat located at the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle. The vehicle also has two passenger seats, lo cated on each side of the driver's seat, with the seating reference points for the passenger seats located 320 mm rearward of the driver's seating reference point. You stated that the driver's seat is fitted with a four-point harness (which you say is n ot a Type 1 or Type 2 belt), while the passenger seats both have three-point, Type 2 belts. You are considering importing the car into the United States and asked whether the restraint systems installed in the vehicle meet the requirements of Federal Mo tor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. As explained below, the restraint system installed at the driver's seat may comply with the requirements of Standard No. 208, but the restraint systems installed at the passenger seats do n ot.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicl es and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment, as is the practice in Europe. Instead, Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The agency periodically tests new vehicles and items of equipment for compliance with the standards.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, requires seat belts to be installed at all designated seating positions in all passenger cars. The F1 road car would be subject to these requirements. Different belt installation requirements apply depending on the seating position within the vehicle and the date of manufacture. For passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1989, but before September 1, 1996, Standrad No. 208 requires automatic crash protection at every front out board seating position, Type 2 belts at every forward facing rear outboard designated seating position, and a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at every other seating position.

Thus, to determine what type of occupant protection is required at each of the seating positions in the F1 road car, it is necessary to determine how each of the seating positions would be categorized. An "outboard designated seating position" is define d in 49 CFR @ 571.3 as "a designated seating position where a longitudinal vertical plane tangent to the outboard side of the seat cushion is less than 12 inches from the innermost point on the inside surface of the vehicle at a height between the design H-point and the shoulder reference point . . . and longitudinally between the front and rear edges of the seat cushion." Based on the location of the two passenger seats, it appears that the driver's seat is located at least 12 inches from the side of t he vehicle and would not be considered an "outboard designated seating position." Therefore, Standard No. 208 requires a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly at the driver's seat in the F1 road car. If the four-point harness installed at the driver's sea t does not meet the requirements for one or the other of these two types of belts, the vehicle would not comply with Standard No. 208.

Standard No. 208, at S4.1.4.2(c), defines "rear outboard designated seating position," in relevant part as "any outboard designated seating position . . . that is rearward of the front seat(s). . ." We interpret this to mean that an outboard designated s eating position must be completely rearward of the front seat or seats in order to be considered a rear outboard designated seating position. Therefore, the two passenger seats in the F1 road car would be considered front outboard designated seating pos itions, and as such, would be required to provide automatic crash protection for the occupants. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protect ion requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currentl y offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used). Beginning with passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1996, a new Federal requirement will be phased in making air bags accompanied by manual Type 2 seat belts mandatory.

Although Standard No. 208 does not require it, this agency strongly encourages you to provide an air bag for the F1's driver. In establishing Standard No. 208's automatic protection requirements and later amending the standard to require air bags, NHTSA anticipated that applying the requirements to the front outboard positions would result in all driver's seating positions being covered. The agency did not apply the requirements to the center seating position largely because that seating position is ra rely used. However, that would not be true if that position were also the driver's seating position. Especially since air bags will be provided for the drivers of all other passenger cars, we urge you to provide that same added protection for drivers o f the F1.

I note that NHTSA has procedures in 49 CFR Part 555 for temporarily exempting vehicles from our safety standards. These procedures may be used by small volume manufacturers such as McLaren to market vehicles that do not (or cannot) comply with the stand ards. For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Part 555.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht94-4.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 1, 1994

FROM: Clay F. West -- Garvey, Schubert and Barer

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/15/94 (EST) FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO CLAY F. WEST (REDBOOK 2; STD. 104)

TEXT: Last week I called the Research & Special Programs Administration, Rulemaking Department to inquire about the existence of any regulations or standards that might apply to a product which is termed a windshield cleaning device. The product is a clear st rip which is adhered to the windshield of an automobile. The action of the wiper blades passing over the device causes the wiper blades to function more effectively.

As I discussed the device with Rich Eiderstein (I have probably misspelled his name), he was reminded of another individual who brought in a similar device and also asked about the existence of any applicable regulations or standards. Mr. Eiderstein inf ormed me that, by writing to you, I could receive a copy of the written analysis prepared by his office with respect to applicable rules and standards.

I appreciate any assistance that you are able to provide.

ID: nht94-4.73

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 1, 1994

FROM: James D. Murphy, Jr.

TO: Recht

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/3/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to James D. Murphy, Jr. (A43; Part 571.3(b)); Also attached to 6/11/86 letter from Erika Jones to Terry W. Wager

TEXT: Dear Mr. Recht,

I am designing a vehicle that I hope to certify as a U.S. street-legal motorcycle.

As you can see in the drawing, it actually has 4 wheels, but since the left and right side wheels are elevated off the ground, no more than 2 wheels touch the ground at any one time. There are some rare circumstances where all 4 wheels could touch th e ground at the same time, for an instant, but these require precise undulations in the surface of the road. I would imagine that NHTSA defines "ground" as a flat surface (otherwise, a headlamp might exceed NHTSA's upper height limit when cresting a bum p, or drop below NHTSA's lower height limit when traversing a pothole, etc.).

Therefore, I hope that this vehicle will still comply with NHTSA's definition of a "motorcycle". I await your reply.

Sincerely,

James D. Murphy Jr.

P.S. You can call me at home at (303) 350-9449; any time. Be sure to ask for James Jr.

(Drawing omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 1, 1994

FROM: Steve Brooks -- General Manager, IAD West Coast, Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 3/2/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO STEVE BROOKS (REDBOOK (2)); STD. 208)

TEXT: We are currently converting a Subaru Panel Van from an internal combustion powertrain to one of pure electric drive. The vehicle is currently a prototype with a central battery pack situated between the road wheels and under the load floor. The vehicle has been designed to meet the needs of a fleet vehicle, for example a small delivery van that has a fixed short work cycle of 40 miles. It is required to be freeway capable, although it is primarily for inner-city and suburban use.

The specifications are: Overall length 1885mm Overall width 1415mm Gross vehicle weight 3500lbs. or less Maximum 2 persons

The vehicle would be classified as light goods vehicle. Would you be able to help me with the definition of crash testing for front and side impact for the vehicle for current and future production, also with the requirement for dual air bags if necessa ry in the future. Do you have any information on approach and departure angles or are they OEM recommended standards?

The vehicle will be modified in the state of California to OEM build standards. If you can help with any of the information it will be very much appreciated.

ID: nht94-4.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 2, 1994

FROM: John Sheppard -- Sales and Marketing Manager, Reflexite Canada, Inc.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/7/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO JOHN SHEPPARD (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: As a manufacturer of retro-reflective sheeting that meets the requirements for "DOT-C2" material as specified in N.H.T.S.A.'s final rule, 49 CFR, Part 57, Docket #80-9, we request an official ruling on the following proposal.

Use of the material outlined below, (sample enclosed) on the rear of vehicles currently required to meet the requirements of the aforementioned regulation.

Material: - Reflexite Conspicuity Material,

- Alternating red and silver strips oriented at a 45 degrees angle to the edge of the roll.

- Widths of rolls to be either 6" or 8".

- Rolls will not have "DOT-C2" marking.

The specific question is as follows:

Could the above mentioned material be applied to the lower edge of the vehicle's rear doors as a compliant substitute for the 2" "block pattern" material currently being used? This alternative would have a great deal more retro-reflective surface are a.

Your attention to this request would be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht94-4.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1994

FROM: Thomas J. Leffler -- Development Shop Manager, FINDLAY INDUSTRIES, INC.

TO: Philip Recht -- Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/7/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO THOMAS J. LEFFLER (A43; STD. 207)

TEXT: Dear Sir:

After talking with Mr. Ed Glancy on the telephone on November 3, 1994, I am making a formal request for an interpretation and ruling on a seat test requirement.

Findlay Industries has a seat design (see attached sketch) that has a storage box below the seat cushion frame. To access the storage space, the seat cushion pivots up to allow entry into the box. This is where the question arises.

In referencing our code of Federal Regulations Book for Transportation (# 49/parts 400 to 999, revised as of October 1, 1990) Part 571.207 Standard No. 207; Seating Systems Section S4.3 (pages 416-417) "Restraining device for hinged or folding seats or s eat backs", we are unsure as to the necessity of our design to comply with this section of Standard 207.

Our seat design, as you can see, only pivots the seat cushion out of the way for access while the remainder of the seat system is a rigid assembly. Does our cushion frame require a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat in the do wn position as stated in Section S4.3? If so, is static or dynamic testing required for this self-locking device?

I would ask for your attention and interpretation as soon as possible due to our production timing and the time required due to any changes deemed necessary by your ruling.

Thank you for your assistance.

attachment

(Drawing of 2/3 seat - # 2025351 omitted.)

ID: nht94-4.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 8, 1994

FROM: R. C. Rost -- Minnesota Body And Equipment Co.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 4/10/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP RECHT TO R. C. ROST (A43; PART 571.3)

TEXT: Dear Council:

In 1988 we wrote you asking for relief from installing roof lights on non yellow buses used for Head Start. You denied our request and I thought this battle was over, but it is not.

Again we are in between federal law and states rights. As you can see from the attached information Minnesota has passed a law stating a Head Start bus shall be non yellow, be lettered Head Start but cannot be equipped with flashing lights or a stop arm . This in direct conflict with your letter of 8/26/88.

We feel it should be up to you and the State of Minnesota to work this out. As sellers of buses and manufacturer's of buses we should not be placed in the middle of this type situation.

We have no feeling on this one way or another. We only ask for clarification as to our ability to sell this type of unit and your authorization for our bus manufacturers to legally build this type of bus for Head Start.

We request that you direct any correspondence not only to us but to Major Gramse who directs the inspection program for buses in the State of Minnesota.

Major Glen Gramse Minnesota State Patrol 444 Cedar St. St. Paul, MN 55101

We would appreciate your speedy response as this law takes effect very soon.

Attached letter:

11/8/94 Major Glen Gramse Minnesota State Patrol 444 Cedar St. St. Paul, MN 55101

RE: Buses used for Minnesota Head Starts after 12/31/94

Dear Mr. Gramse:

It is our understanding that Head Starts may choose from two different types of buses.

1. A yellow and black bus that meets all Minnesota standards for school bus and has an "MN" in the serial number certifying it meets Minnesota standards as well as federal standards.

2. A non yellow bus lettered Head Start with no roof warning lights and no stop arm, but with an "MN" in the serial number certifying it to meet all "school bus standards and Head Start bus bodies by law". This statement would include federal standards by law.

We have no problem with item 1, above yellow buses, it is item 2 non yellow buses that causes a problem. Attached you will find a letter for Chief Council for the U.S. Department of Transportation discussing the federal requirement for roof lights and t his also covers the 1992 federal requirement for a stop arm on a school bus, whether yellow or non yellow. We request an Attorney Generals opinion on this part of the Minnesota Head Start law and a hold harmless agreement from the state agreeing to defe nd any school bus seller who delivers a non federal standard bus into Minnesota that meets state but not federal standards. The hold harmless agreement should cover any cash awards whether federal, state of civil arising from any injuries due to omittio n of federal requirements on a Head Start bus.

Since federal law requires that we must deliver a non yellow school bus with lights and stop arm to the end user and they remove the lights and stop arm, we request the same hold harmless agreement for Head Starts as for bus sellers.

Since we must deliver the bus with lights and stop arms we request a hold harmless agreement from the State regarding the "MN" certifications false signing.

It is our feeling that in the event of a child's injury on any non yellow Head Start bus where the lights and stop arm have been removed that the person removing or disconnecting or ordering the items not to be used would be subject to civil and federal litigation and liability.

The letter from the Department of Transportation has been supplied to the Minnesota Department of School Transportation, The Highway Patrol Inspectors and the Department of Public Safety.

We request a speedy resolution to this matter and immediate notification to Head Starts and bus sellers.

R. C. Rost -- MINNESOTA BODY AND EQUIPMENT CO.

P.S. It is our feeling that activation of the 4 way hazard lights while loading or unloading Head Start children in no way alerts traffic that children are loading or unloading and does not give them the protection they are entitled to.

ID: nht94-4.78

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 11, 1994

FROM: Barbara Kise

TO: Chief Consul

TITLE: Air bag in 1994 automobile

ATTACHMT: Attached to 1/9/95 letter from Philip R. Recht to Barbara Kise (A43; Std. 208; VSA 108 (9)(2)(A))

TEXT: Sir:

On July 27, 1994 I purchased a 1994 Oldsmobile with an air bag installed I am concerned about the powder that is ejected as a result of an accident.

I am a COPD patient and am on oxygen for this disease. I wonder if the air bag could be disconnected and just rely on my sear belts for safety purposes? With my emphysema and chronic bronchitis, I don't think my lungs could tolerate the residue from th e air bag. I would be willing to sign papers releasing everyone from responsibility of disconnecting the air bag

Sir, I would appreciate it very much if you could help me with this problem. Thank you for your cooperation

Sincerely,

Ms. Barbara Kise

ID: nht94-4.79

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: November 14, 1994

FROM: Philip R. Recht -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Vincent Ugoletti -- Chief Engineer, Great Lakes Communications, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 9/7/94 FROM VINCENT A. UGOLETTI TO CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA (OCC 10335)

TEXT: This responds to your September 7, 1994 letter to this office in which you stated your intention to modify a "conversion" van into a "production" van by replacing the original front seats with seats that swivel. You stated in an October 4 telephone conv ersation with Walter Myers of my staff that the vehicle in question is a 1994 cargo van. The vehicle has two front seats, and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 9,680 pounds (lbs.). You also explained that the work will be done by a commercial veh icle modification shop. You asked us about the requirements for swivel front seats.

By way of background, 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq. authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112, each person selling a new ve hicle must ensure that the vehicle is certified as complying with all applicable FMVSSs. NHTSA has five safety standards, described below, applicable to motor vehicle seats. The original seats and seat belts on your van were required to meet the requir ements of those standards when the new van was sold to you.

The five standards set performance criteria ensuring that seats and seat belts provide safety benefits in a crash. Standard No. 207, Seating systems (49 CFR section 571.207), establishes strength and other performance requirements for vehicle seats. Th e standard does not prohibit the installation of swivel seats in vans. Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), specifically section S4.2.3, sets forth occupant protection requirements at the various seating positions in vehicles su ch as yours manufactured after September 1, 1991, and with a GVWR not greater than 10,000 lbs. Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), sets strength, durability, and other requirements for seat belts. Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assemb ly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210), establishes strength and location requirements for seat belt anchorages. Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR 571.302), specifies the flammability resistance of the seats and seat belts. Copies of those standards are enclosed, as well as a fact sheet explaining how to obtain copies of all FMVSSs.

Generally speaking, once a motor vehicle is sold to its first retail purchaser, its use and any modifications made to it become a matter of state interest. Thus, owners of used vehicles may personally make any modifications or alterations they want to th eir vehicles without regard to the FMVSSs, subject only to applicable state requirements.

There is, however, a limitation on modifications of used vehicles by commercial entities. 49 U.S.C. 30122 provides that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any device or element of des ign installed on or in a motor vehicle or equipment in compliance with an FMVSS. Since the seats and their safety belts are devices or elements of design that were installed in your van in compliance with applicable FMVSSs (particularly the five standar ds listed above), a business listed in section 30122 cannot modify the vehicle in such a manner as to remove the seats and/or safety belts from compliance. Accordingly, the vehicle modifier should ensure that the swivel seats and any seat belts it insta lls are installed in accordance with the requirements of the standards.

You indicated that Great Lakes Communications wishes to maintain the safety of the original seats and seat belts. We commend that decision. NHTSA urges vehicle owners not to degrade the performance of the safety systems on their vehicles.

I hope this information is helpful. Should you have any further questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers or Mary Versailles of my staff at (202) 366-2992.