ID: nht79-4.29

DATE: 08/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 3, 1979, asking several questions concerning the definition of "designated seating position" (49 CFR 571.3), as that term was recently amended (44 FR 23229, April 19, 1979).

In your first question, you ask for confirmation that any bench or split-bench seat with less than 50 inches of hip room may never be required to have three or more than three designated seating positions, notwithstanding the capability of accomodating a person at least as large as fifth percentile adult female. Your assumption is incorrect. As noted in the (Illegible Word) to the recent amendment, the 50-inch specification does not mean that some vehicle seats with less than 50 inches of hip room should not also have more than two designated seating positions, if the vehicle and seat design is such that three positions would likely be used (44 FR 23232). The specification is nerely the amount of space the agency will consider as conclusive evidence that there should be at least three designated seating positions. The 50-inch caveat was included in the definition to simplify determinations of proper seating capacity by both manufacturers and the agency.

Your second question involves technical aspects of the amended definition of "designated seating position". The definition specifies that "hip room" is to be measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). That standard defines "hip room" as,

"the minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the 'x' plane through the (Illegible Word) front Vithin 1.0 in. (25mm) below and 3.0 in. (76mm) above the SqRP-front and 3.0 in. (76mm) force and aft of the SqRP-front." (Area A in your diagrams.)

Your question includes diagrams and asks whether various portions of vehicle seats or other components would be considered "trimmed surfaces" within SAE Standard J1100(a).

Specifically, you ask whether slightly soft surfaces such as arm rests, seat back contours or other raised portions of the seat cushion would be considered "trimmed surfaces", for purposes of determining the minimum hip room dimension. The answer to your question is yes. The agency would probably consider all of the surfaces illustrated in your letter "trimmed surfaces" and, strictly speaking, within the meaning of the SAE procedure. This interpretation must be qualified, however. The procedure specifies that "hip room" is the minimum dimension "between trimmed surfaces". If a particular bench seat has distinct sections, the total dimension must be determined by adding the minimum dimensions of each section. For example, your Figure 5 illustrates a bench seat that includes a slightly raised center surface on the tunnel (in the center of the seat over the driveshaft). The lowest portion of Area A as defined in SAE J1100(a) would strike the side of this elevated center section, even though the top portion of Area A would be above the elevation. In such case, there would be three distinct portions of the seat (the driver's seat, the passenger seat, and the center seat position) that should be measured separately and then added together to get the total dimension. Otherwise, only the portion of the seat on the driver's side of the center elevation would be measured under the strict wording of the SAE procedure--an absurd result.

Regarding these questions about the measurement procedure, I must make several candid remarks. The agency will not allow manufacturers to avoid the obvious intent of the definition of "designated seating position" by finding loopholes in the measurement procedure. Further, as noted above, even if the hip room as measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a) is less than 50 inches, a manufacturer may still be required to designate three seating positions. If the measured dimension is less than 50 inches only because of slight elevations or contours on the outside seat cushion, a manufacturer must designate at least three positions if these elevation or contours are not real impediments to three persons occupying the seat.

Determinations of designated seating capacity under the amended definition should not cause manufacturers any real problems. If a manufacturer truly only intends to market a particular bench or split-bench seat for two occupants, he can and should make this obvious by the seat design, regardless of whether the total seat dimension is more than 50 inches or less than 50 inches. One simple way to do this is to install a permanent arm rest or console in the center portion of the seat.

I hope this response has clarified our position and will alleviate any problems you might have in making future determinations of proper designated seating capacity.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

July 3, 1979

Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am writing this letter to you to ask you for your interpretation concerning the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position," final rule in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77. Your earliest reply to the attached questions would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Hisakauz Murakami Staff Safety

cc: RALPH HITCHOCK; GUY HUNTER

Question 2.1 (a) General

Generally speaking, would the so-called trimmed surfaces within Area A in SAE J1100(a) include the slightly soft surface (for example, seat cushion surface, seat back surface and arm rest surface) which changes its form somewhat when an occupant is sitting?

Question 2.1 (b)

If your answer is "no" in Question 2.1 (a), please show me the detailed definitions of the trimmed surfaces (for example, body panel).

Question 2.2

Surface of the Arm-Rest

Would the surface of the arm rest be considered the trimmed surfaces within the Area A when the hip-room will be measured?

Arm Rest

Figure 2

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.3

Surface of the Seat-Back

Would the surface of the seat-back on the wheel-house portion be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Portion of the seat-back

Figure 3

(Graphics omitted)

Question 2.4

Surface of the Outside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the outside seat-cushion side be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Outside seat-cushion side

Figure 4 Question 2.5

Surface of the Inside Seat-Cushion Side

Would the surface of the inside cushion side on the tunnel be considered the trimmed surfaces within Area A?

Inside seat-cushion side

Figure 5

(Graphics omitted)

NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD. ENGINEERING OFFICE OF NORTH AMERICA

May 10, 1979

Guy Hunter Crashworthiness Division Office of Vehicle Safety Standards NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Mr. Hunter:

During my May 4th visit to your office, I requested your interpretation concerning the measurement procedure of the "Hip Room" with regard to SAE J 1100a, which was adopted in the 49 CFR Part 571, "Designated Seating Position". The final rule was issued in the April 19, 1979 Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 77.

At that time, you suggested that I submit my questions, along with a letter, to your office for response.

I would, therefore, like to take this time to submit my questions to you and ask for your interpretation.

Thank you for your fine cooperation with regard to this particular matter. We look forward to hearing your interpretations in the near future.

Should any questions arise, please feel free to contact me at (201) 871-3555.

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Staff, Safety

Q-1 The "X" plane through the SgRP

SAE J 1100a states the following as the definitions of the Three-Dimensional Reference System and the Hip-room:

ZERO "Y" PLANE - (Centerline body zero plane) is a vertical plane which passes through the longitudinal centerline of the vehicle.

ZERO "X" PLANE - Vertical body zero plane is a plane normal to the "Y" plane.

ZERO "Z" PLANE - Horizontal body zero plane is a plane normal to the "X" and "Y" planes.

W5-HIP ROOM-FRONT - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25 mm) below and 3.0 in (76 mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76 mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

W6-HIP ROOM-SECOND - Measured in the same matter as W5

The above-mentioned definitions are identical to those in SAE J 182a as shown in Fig. 1.

It is my understanding that the "X" plane through the SgRP (I think we should call this "X" plane the "Y-Z" plane through the SgRP, mathematically speaking) in W5 or W6 of SAE J 1100a is the one as shown in Fig. 2. Is my understanding correct?

Q-2 The measurement procedure of "Hip-room

Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes", it would then be my understanding that there can be two (2) different ways of interpreting the measurement of W5 (or W6) as shown below.

(a) The case of emphasizing "the "X" plane through the SgRP"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front"will not be significant as shown in Fig. 3.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane through the SgRP-front within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front.

(b) The case of emphasizing "within 1.0 in . . . . aft of the SgRP-front"

In this case, W5 will be defined as follows, and the words of "through the SgRP-front" will not be significant as shown in Fig. 4.

W5-HIP-ROOM - The minimum dimension measured laterally between the trimmed surfaces on the "X" plane within 1.0 in (25mm) below and 3.0 in (76mm) above the SgRP-front and 3.0 in (76mm) fore and aft of the SgRP-front.

Which is correct, (a) or (b)?

FIG. 1

(Graphics omitted) FIG. 2

"X" plane through the SgRP

FIG. 3

FIG. 4 (Graphics omitted)

ID: 1985-02.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/28/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Robert M. Levy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert M. Levy Manager, Design Engineering Abex Corporation Signal-Stat Division P.O. Box 438 Somerset, New Jersey 08873-3492

Dear Mr. Levy:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1985, to Frank Berndt, the former Chief Counsel of this agency, asking for clarification of an interpretation of Safety Standard No. 108 that tnis agency furnished last year to Wesbar Corp.

On May 16, 1984, Wesbar asked whether the correct minimum effective luminous lens area on stop lamps and turn signal lamps was 8 square inches or 12 square inches, when intended for use on trailers whose overall width is 80 inches or greater. This office advised Wesbar on July 3, 1984, that, as specified in SAE J586c for stop.lamps and SAE J588e for turn signal lamps, the answer was 8 square inches. Your letter calls to our attention the fact that these SAE standards require each stop and turn signal lamp to have a minimum of 12 square inches in those vehicle configurations where two stop or turn signal lamps are mounted on the same side of the vehicle and are closer to each other than 22 inches.

Thank you for calling this oversight to our attention. Indeed, SAE J586c and J588e establish this exception to the general minimum requirement of 8 square inches. We are furnishing a copy of this letter to Wesbar and apologize for any confusion that the earlier letter has caused.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. C.I. Nielsen III Vice President - Marketing Wesbar Corporation Box 577 West Bend, Wisconsin 53095

ID: nht68-3.43

DATE: 07/25/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; David A. Fay; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of July 2, 1968, to Mr. George C. Nield, Acting Director, Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service, concerning requirements for combination clearance and side marker lamps.

Paragraph S3.3 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 permits the combination of two or more lamps providing the requirements for each are met. Table 1 in SAE Standard J592b gives the photometric requirements for both the clearance and side marker lamps, and Section J of the Standard permits their combination providing the combination complies with both clearance and side marker minimum candlepower requirements. Section J also defines the H-V axis of the combination as parallel with the longitudinal axis of the vehicle when checking clearance lamp test points, and normal to this vehicle axis when checking side marker test points.

Your table of minimum candlepower requirements for the Type 2 combination lamp meets J592b and therefore Standard No. 108 providing you define the H-V axis as that of the side marker lamp. The requirements for the Type 1 combination as specified in your table will not meet J592b or Standard No. 108 unless you change H-10, -20, -30, -45, -60, -80 and -90, both 1, and R to H-15, -25, -35, -45, -55, -65, -75 and -90, both L and R, and define the H-V axis as a line through the center of the lamp at a 45 degree angle to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle.

Your mounting instructions are considerably more restrictive than those implied in J592b and Standard No. 108. Actually, no additional mounting instructions are necessary, because any mounting which meets the minimum candlepower requirements of Table 1 in J592 and your table with the suggested revisions would meet the requirements of Standard No. 108.

ID: aiam4510

"Dear Mr. Friedman: This is a response to your letter dated Novembe 17, 1987, asking whether two child restraint systems you have designed comply with certain requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard 213, Child Restraint Systems. You call one system 'Cradle Safe,' and describe it as an inclined, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed to restrain new-born infants from 4.5 to 14 lbs. The second system you call 'Premie Cradle,' and describe it as a recumbent, rear-facing, deformable, vinyl-covered woodfiber board carrier designed for premature infants from 4 to 6 lbs. Your letter assesses the performance attributes of these systems as follows: 'In an accident the baby is oriented and cushioned to avoid injury and ejection by a deformable, energy absorbing 'bed' and 'shell' without harnessing the infant. The bed and its crushable extensions (wings) cause the infant to rotate and take acceleration forces through its back and limit those applied to the head. After rotation, the infant is cushioned by the collapsing bed.' You state your belief that both systems comply with applicable provisions of Standard 213, but ask for our comment because 'the designs are innovative and make the applicability and interpretation of certain paragraphs of the standard not entirely obvious.' To help the agency better understand your products and the methods you used to test performance, you requested that agency staff meet with you, and your colleague, Mr. David Shinn. On April 12, 1988, a meeting was held with you, Mr. Shinn, and agency staff from the following offices: Chief Counsel, Enforcement, Plans and Policy, Research and Development, Rulemaking, and Traffic Safety Programs. At that meeting, you and Mr. Shinn presented a video-film showing two sled-tests of your cradle-safe restraint system, one with a NHTSA-specified, 17 pound dummy, and one with an EEC eight pound dummy. In the video film, your child restraint system broke apart in the 30 mph test with the 17 pound dummy, but appeared to maintain its structural integrity when tested with the eight pound dummy. You did not show a sled-test with your 'Premie Cradle' product. By a letter dated June 8, 1988, you informed this agency that you had performed tests of a 'modified' Cradle-Safe restraint system, and that this system will contain the NHTSA-specified 17 pound dummy in simulated barrier-impact testing under Standard 213. You state further that a restraint system you call 'One-ride' also will contain a 17 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. (You did not address the 'One-ride' restraint in your November 17, 1987, correspondence, nor did you present it during the April 12, 1988 meeting.) Your June 8 letter also references a letter of July 22, 1987, addressed to Mr. Val Radovich of this agency, a June 3, 1988 video tape showing a simulated barrier impact test of your Cradle-Safe seat with a 17 pound dummy, and submissions of patent documents in support of a patent application for your products. As NHTSA staff understood from your November 17, 1987 letter, and the April 12, 1988 meeting, your principal question was whether you could test a Standard 213 child restraint system with an eight or 14 pound dummy (rather than the specified 17 pound dummy), if you intended to label the restraint as appropriate for children from 4.5 to 10 pounds. You briefly addressed the other matters raised in your November 17, letter, clarifying a reference to an 'unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in (Standard 213) testing.' You explained that the 'belt' to which you refer is a two-piece, cloth wrap that anchors at either side of the restraint, and fastens over the child with a velcro attachment. I shall respond to your comments in the order that you present them in your letter, also discussing new matters raised in the meeting, in the June 8, 1988 letter, and in your other submissions where appropriate. I will not discuss the patent materials because they are not relevant to a determination of whether your restraint systems comply with Standard 213. In responding to your comments, I assume that we are discussing only those child restraint systems designed for children weighing less than 20 pounds (infant restraints). Your First Comment. Paragraph 5.1.1.a dealing with Child Restraint System Integrity specifies 'no complete...and no partial separation' of surfaces. Our design is deformable and involves materials of 1/4' thickness which in deforming, tear slightly. However when torn these materials are not lacerating and not likely to come into contact with the infant. Response. Paragraph S5.1.1(a) states that when a child restraint is tested as specified in the Standard, the system shall: Exhibit no complete separation of any load bearing structural element and no partial separation exposing either surfaces with a radius of less than 1/4 inch or surfaces with protrusions greater than 3/8 inch above the immediate adjacent surrounding contactable surface of any structural element of the system. If the system failure you describe as tearing of materials at the system surface does not result in a failure of the load-bearing structure of the system, then paragraph S5.1.1(a) is inapplicable. In 1978, NHTSA proposed adding this language to 213 as one of a number of amendments to the Standard that would upgrade performance requirements, improve performance criteria, and require dynamic testing of child restraint systems using anthropomorphic test dummies. (43 FR 21470, 21473, May 18, 1978.) In the preamble of that document, we stated that our objectives in promulgating the system integrity requirements were to prevent a child's excessive excursion or ejection from the system, and to ensure that the system does not fracture or separate in such a way as to harm the child. (43 FR 21470, 21473.) To accomplish this objective, Standard 213 requires that in dynamic testing, any load-bearing, structural element of a child restraint system must not separate completely, and that any partial separation must not expose surfaces with sharp edges that may contact the child. Id. Your letter states that some materials at the surface of your system may tear during an impact. In promulgating S5.1.1(a), the agency intended to minimize dangers resulting from failures in the structural integrity of the system, rather than failures in the materials. The agency did not intend to preclude a manufacturer from designing some deformation into a child restraint system to improve the system's energy absorption performance. Your Second Comment. Paragraph 5.2.3.2.b The system surface in contact with the infant's head shall be covered with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. Although our system surfaces are not covered, they are fabricated out of such material. The system surface in contact with the infants head (the bed) is 3/16' woodfiber separated by air from a similar material in the shell. The system complies with the requirement and when dynamically tested exhibits deformation much better than a 25% compression-deflection, but there is no appropriate ASTM Test Standard such as for open or closed cell foam. Response. As I read your comment, you raise three issues which I shall address separately. The first is whether the material from which you fabricate your system can meet the S5.2.3.2(b) requirement that a child restraint system must be 'covered' with slow recovery, energy absorbing material. The agency's long-standing position is that a given type of surface material is an acceptable 'covering' if it is a flexible material that would meet the thickness and performance requirements for energy-absorbing padding set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of S5.2.3.2. The surface needn't have a separate layer of energy-absorbing padding. The second issue is whether 3/16 inch woodfiber is a sufficient thickness for a system surface. This thickness would not comply with S5.2.3.2(b) of Standard 213. That subparagraph requires thicknesses of at least 1/2 or 3/4 inch, depending on the material's compression-deflection performance as measured in the static testing specified in S6.3 of Standard 213. You assert that the 3/16 inch thickness material used in your systems exceeds a 25% compression-deflection measurement in dynamic testing. In the preamble to the final rule amending Standard 213, NHTSA responded to commenters who suggested that specifying a minimum thickness for the infant restraint surface was design-restrictive. (44 FR 72131, 72135, December 13, 1979.) We explained in that document that we set these minimum thickness requirements because there was no available test device to measure the energy absorption properties of either the surface or underlying structure of an infant restraint in dynamic testing. Consequently, the agency specified 'long-established static tests' of the surface material, and established minimum thickness requirements based on the results of those static tests. Therefore, a compression-deflection measurement derived from dynamic testing is not an acceptable test of compliance with paragraph S5.2.3.2. The third issue is whether the compression-deflection measurement for this system must be derived from tests under one of the ASTM standards in S6.3, even though none of the ASTM titles expressly states that the test is for woodfiber, and all three procedures are for static tests. Paragraph S5.2.3.2(b) requires that when one tests the energy absorption properties of child restraint materials, those tests must be conducted under one of three ASTM static test procedures set out in paragraph S6.3 of Standard 213. Your restraint systems are made of woodfiber. Woodfiber - or any material that meets the Standard's requirements - can be an acceptable substance out of which to fabricate a child restraint. As NHTSA stated in the final rule preamble cited earlier, the agency wishes to allow restraint manufacturers to use a wide range of materials, provided that the material exhibits acceptable energy absorption properties. You may use any ASTM title specified in paragraph S6.3 to test your surface material, and the material is acceptable if it displays the required energy absorption properties when tested under one of those titles. Your Third Comment. Paragraph 5.4.3.1 'Each belt that is part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system...' is interpreted to mean that a soft unspecified belt provided for use outside the vehicle and not required in testing, need not conform to this paragraph. Response. As you explained in the April 12, meeting, the 'belt' to which you refer is the cloth device described in the beginning of this letter. By its express terms, paragraph S5.4.3.1 is inapplicable to belts that are (1) not part of the child restraint system and (2) not designed to restrain a child using the system. On the other hand, I note that in the June 8, video tape, the narrative refers to a belt within the Cradle-Safe system as a belt for restraining the child. If you do intend any belt in the system to be used for restraining the child, then various provisions of paragraph S5.4.3, Belt Restraint, will apply, depending on the design configuration of the belt assembly. In the preamble to the May 1978 proposal cited earlier in this letter, the agency expressed its continuing concern that child restraint system designs minimize the prospect of system misuse. (43 FR 21470, 21471.) If there are belts in any of your child restraint systems that you do not intend as restraints for the child, then I hope you will consider whether these additional belts unreasonably increase the risk that some users will mistake the additional belt assembly as a Standard 213 belt intended for use in restraining a child. Your Fourth Comment. Paragraph 6. This paragraph requires the CRADLE SAFE to be tested with a paragraph 7 dummy (17 lb.) for which it was not designed and which cannot be physically accommodated. We would prefer to use available 7.8 lb. and/or 14 lb. non-specified dummies. The PREMIE CRADLE falls in the car bed 'travel crib' category and does not require dynamic testing. Response. Paragraph S7.1 of Standard 213 requires testing an infant restraint system with the 6-month-old dummy specified in 49 CFR 572.25. (An infant restraint system is one that is recommended 'for use by children in a weight range that includes children weighing not more than 20 pounds.') That test device is 17.4 pounds. Because your child safety system meets the definition of infant restraint, it must be capable of meeting Standard 213 performance requirements when tested with the specified 17.4 pound dummy. If an infant restraint can not accommodate this test device, then it can not be certified as complying with Standard 213. I understand from your June 8, 1988, letter that the Cradle-Safe and One-Ride systems will accommodate the specified 17.4 pound dummy in Standard 213 testing. Further, your restraint systems must meet head excursions limits with the 17.4 pound dummy under paragraph S5.1.3.2, Rear-facing Child Restraint Systems. The dummy specified in Part 572 is based on a simple design that represents a 6-month-old infant in dimensional, mass distribution, and dynamic response characteristics. NHTSA chose to use this test dummy after conducting extensive testing and evaluation of the dummy's responses. The testing, conducted by NHTSA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), showed that the specified dummy provided a consistent and repeatable measure of the structural integrity and confinement properties of a child restraint system, and was superior to a previous test version. (43 FR 21490, May 18, 1978, 44 FR 76527, December 27, 1979.) Before we can sanction use of another device to test an infant restraint system, the agency would have to determine that the dummy is a reliable surrogate for measuring a system's performance in an actual crash. NHTSA can not now make that statement with respect to any unspecified dummy, instrumented or non-instrumented. The agency can make this kind of finding only through a rulemaking process. Further, contrary to what you believe, infant car beds are subject to dynamic testing to ensure that the test dummy stays within the confines of the restraint system during impact. (Standard 213, S6.1.2.3.3.) While you believe you have identified some potential problems with Standard 213, I am sure that you can appreciate the need to follow established procedures when considering any change to a safety standard. Following established practices helps ensure that child restraint systems which comply with Federal standards continue to offer satisfactory crash protection for children. The agency has scheduled two public meetings this summer in order to explore the need for changes to Standard 213. I enclose a copy of the notice announcing these meetings, and invite you to participate in the forum. Based on the information you provided, it appears that you would have to modify your systems, or the agency would have to amend Standard 213 in order for you to be able to certify your child restraint system as satisfying all the applicable requirements of that Standard. Title 49 CFR Part 552, Petitions for Rulemaking, Defect, and Noncompliance Orders (copy enclosed) sets out a procedure for petitioning the agency to amend a safety standard, and you have a right to file such a petition. If NHTSA grants your petition, the agency would follow its normal rulemaking procedures to amend Standard 213. If you have some further questions or need further information on this subject, please contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at our address, or telephone (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: aiam5472

Dear Ms. Mann: This responds to your letter of September 15, 1994, t Patrick Boyd of this agency. As he has told you, we did not receive a copy of it until around November 9. You ask for confirmation of your understanding of the conspicuity requirements of S5.7.1.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 as they apply to large boat trailers, based upon a meeting you had with him and Taylor Vinson of this Office earlier in the summer. We have paraphrased your concerns for conciseness in our discussion which follows. Side treatment 1. Paragraph S5.1.1.9 allows a double-faced clearance lamp to be mounted at or near the midpoint of wide boat trailers to indicate the extreme width. Paragraph S5.7.1.4, in essence, prohibits retroreflective material from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp. While the closest edge of the fender-mounted lamp will be further than 75 mm from the body-mounted retroreflective material, when viewed from the side the separation distance vanishes and the material appears next to the lamp. You asked whether this configuration complies with Standard No. 108. NHTSA regards this configuration as meeting the requirements of Standard No. 108 since the actual physical distance between the closest edge of the lamp and the material is more than 75 mm. But the more important point is that the spacing of side conspicuity material is a consideration only for required side lamps. The amber lamp in question is a front clearance lamp and the proximity of side facing reflectors has no effect on its visibility from the side. 2. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1(a) requires that the material cover at least half the trailer length and that it be distributed as even as practicable. For purposes of calculating the 50 percent minimum, you asked whether the following two applications are acceptable: a) The sheeting can be on the angled portion of the trailer that is the tongue, regardless of its effect on the reflectivity of the tape when viewed from the side. NHTSA has traditionally included the trailer tongue in determining the overall length of the vehicle for compliance purposes. Therefore, sheeting applied to the trailer tongue may be used in calculating the 50 percent minimum. (b) The sheeting need not all be on the same horizontal plane. This is correct. If a manufacturer applies sheeting to the tongue and fender in fulfilling the 50% minimum obligation, the material need not be at the same height as the other sheeting on the trailer. However, wherever applied, each discrete portion of sheeting must be mounted as horizontal as practicable. Rear Treatment 1. Paragraph S5.7.1.4.1 specifies the application of three Elements of sheeting to the rear of trailers. However, it excuses container chassis and platform trailers without bulkheads from being equipped with Element 2 treatment, and trailers without underride protection devices from the requirements of Element 3. You asked whether NHTSA would also excuse boat trailers without bulkheads in the same manner as platform trailers, requiring compliance only with Element 1. This is correct. The configuration of a boat trailer without a bulkhead is essentially that of a platform trailer, and it may also be exempted from providing Element 2 conspicuity treatment. Due to their low heights, boat trailers are not equipped with rear underride devices, and those trailers without underride devices are excluded from the requirement for providing Element 3 treatment. 2. Element 1 retroreflective material is to be applied 'across the full width of the trailer' but under paragraph S5.7.1(a) it need not be applied to 'items of equipment such as door hinges and lamp bodies.' There is a cross member at the rear which will have conspicuity treatment across the full width, however, mounting brackets attached to the cross member obscure portions of the conspicuity treatment. You asked for confirmation that this configuration is in accordance with Standard No. 108. The exclusionary term 'items of equipment' is not limited to the two examples cited in S5.7.1(a), door hinges and lamp bodies. We believe that any equipment to which it is impracticable to apply retroreflective material may be excluded from the requirement. You have not included any pictures of the mounting brackets, but this will confirm that NHTSA regards the mounting brackets as 'items of equipment' to which the treatment need not be applied, if it is impracticable to apply material to it. In this event, application of conspicuity treatment across the full width of the cross member meets Standard No. 108 even if the subsequently added mounting brackets without treatment obscure part of it. 3. Does NHTSA interpret 'full width of the trailer' to include the rear of the fender assembly, so as to require the application of conspicuity treatment to it? You asked for confirmation that the phrase applies only to the rear of the frame. NHTSA has defined 'overall vehicle width' to exclude flexible fender extensions, but it has not adopted a definition for 'full width.' We understand from your first question, on the centrally mounted clearance lamp, that boat trailer fenders will be located at or near the center of the trailer rather than at the rear. Under this circumstance, we interpret 'full width' to include only the vehicle structure at the rear end of the trailer, including its frame and rear cross members. 4. With respect to the relative location of the edge of retroreflective sheeting to the edge of required lamps, S5.7.1.4(b) prohibits white sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required lamp whether red or amber, while S5.7.1.4(c) prohibits red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm to the edge of any required amber lamp only. You asked for confirmation 'that the edge of the red portion of the sheeting may abut a rear identification lamp but that the white portion of the sheeting must be at lease (sic) 3mm (sic) from those lamps.' (We believe you mean 3 inches). This is correct. S5.7.1.4(c) does not prohibit red sheeting from being closer than 75 mm (3 inches) to the red rear identification lamp, and the two may abut. However, S5.7.1.4(b) does not allow the edge of white sheeting to be closer than 75 mm to the edge of the luminous lens area of the identification lamp. Finally, you have asked for confirmation of your understanding 'that it is not acceptable for trailer manufacturers to give rolls of reflexive sheeting tape and instructions to dealers regarding its application. Rather, the sheeting must be installed at the factory.' We confirm your understanding. The manufacturer of the trailer is required to certify compliance of its product with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards upon its completion and before its delivery for introduction into interstate commerce. As this certification includes compliance with S5.7 of Standard No. 108, the conspicuity treatment must be applied as part of the manufacturing process and not delegated to dealers. Sincerely, Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel;

ID: NCC-240112-Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

August 8, 2024

Mark Cherveny
Manager, Global Relations, Standards & Compliance The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
200 Innovation Way
Akron, OH 44316-0001 

Dear Mr. Cherveny: 

This letter responds to Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s “Letter of Interpretation Request for § 571.139 S5.5(c): maximum inflation pressure,” which states that your company has received requests from original equipment vehicle manufacturers to stamp “350 kPa” on “Extra Load” passenger tires. Your request seeks clarification on whether your company is “permitted to stamp an Extra Load passenger tire with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa.” It then asks: “If this is permitted, then would the minimum breaking energy specified in [49 C.F.R.] § 571.109 Table I-C and the test inflation pressures specified in § 571.109 Table II – Test Inflation Pressures … still apply for strength testing?” 

In responding to this request, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) notes that the contents of this letter do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This letter is only intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law at the time of signature. 

As to your question whether “Extra Load” tires may be labeled as 350 kPa, NHTSA’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) have no labeling requirements based on whether a passenger car tire is extra load or standard load. Thus, the FMVSS do not prohibit the proposed labeling on passenger car tires.1 

As to your question about the minimum breaking energy and inflation pressure tests in FMVSS No. 109, the testing requirements in Table I-C and Table II are based on a tire’s maximum inflation pressure and make no reference to whether the tire is labeled as standard load, extra

1 This letter, like your request, focuses solely on the FMVSS. Whether the proposed labeling complies with any other federal or state law or standards is outside the scope of this letter and we take no position on that question.

Page 2
Mr. Mark Cherveny 

load, or XL.2 Thus, passenger car tires with a maximum inflation pressure of 350 kPa are subject to the inflation pressures indicated for 350 kPa tires in the testing requirements set forth in Tables I-C and II. 

We note that your request did not inquire how the testing requirements in FMVSS 139, as opposed to those in FMVSS 109, apply to 350 kPa tires that have been stamped “Extra Load.” Because you did not request an interpretation of the testing standards in FMVSS 139, this letter does not provide such an interpretation. 

Finally, as you note in your letter, FMVSS No. 138—unlike FMVSS 109 and 139—does refer to the maximum inflation pressures for both standard load and extra load tires. The U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association has requested that NHTSA amend FMVSS No. 109 and 139 “to clarify marking and testing based on load classification,” and that it specifically clarify “whether 350 kPa is acceptable as a ‘Maximum Permissible Inflation Pressure’ marking for XL tires.”3 NHTSA is considering that request. However, as they currently stand, the testing requirements in Tables I-C and II of FMVSS 109 make no reference to load classification and are based solely on a tire’s maximum inflation pressure. 

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact David Jasinski of my office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
ADAM RAVIV
Adam Raviv Chief Counsel

Dated: 8/8/24
Ref: Standard No. 109

2 FMVSS No. 109 has never referred to the terms “standard load,” “extra load,” or “reinforced” tires. 58 FR 59227 (Nov. 8, 1993).
3 See Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0011-0017.

ID: aiam4756

"Dear Mr. Gill: This responds to your request that this agenc determine that the new antitheft device proposed to be installed on the MY 1991 Honda Acura NS-X car line, represents a de minimis change in the system that was the basis for the agency's previous granting of a theft exemption for the car line beginning in MY 1991, and that therefore the Acura NS-X vehicles containing the new device would be fully covered by that exemption. As you are aware, the Acura NS-X car line was granted an exemption, pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543, from antitheft marking because Honda showed that the antitheft device to be used in lieu of marking on the car line was likely to be as effective as parts marking. This exemption was issued on February 5, 1990, and appeared in the Federal Register on February 9, 1990 (55 FR 4746). The agency granted the exemption from theft marking because the agency found that based on substantial evidence, the agency believed that the antitheft device is 'likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the theft prevention standard (49 CFR Part 541).' In the granting of the exemption from theft marking, the agency stated that it believed that the device will provide the types of performance listed in 49 CFR Part 543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation, attracting attention to unauthorized entries, preventing defeat or circumventing of the device by unauthorized persons, preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants, and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device. In your letter, it was stated that beginning from MY 1991, Honda plans improvements in the antitheft device that is standard equipment on the Acura NS-X in two ways: First, the new antitheft system would be armed by using the auto door lock system control to lock either door. Honda states that in the system that was the subject of the exemption from the theft prevention system, it was necessary to use the control on the driver's door in order to arm the system. According to the attachment provided in your letter, this change would make it possible to arm the the theft deterrent system by locking either door even if the other door is left unlocked. Second, the radio would now be included in the alarm system. Thus, the alarm system will be activated if the radio terminal or the coupler is disconnected, or if the radio's wiring is cut. After reviewing the proposed changes to the componentry and performance of the antitheft device on which the exemption was based, the agency concludes that the changes are de minimis. While the new device has enhanced componentry and provides some aspects of performance not provided by the original device, it also continues to provide the same aspects of performance provided by the original device and relies on essentially the same componentry to provide that performance. Therefore, it is not necessary for Honda to submit a petition to modify the exemption pursuant to 49 CFR Part 543.9(c)(2). If Honda does not implement the new antitheft device as described in your letter, or delays implementation until after MY 1991, we request that Honda notify the agency of such decisions. It is my understanding that, in a May 16, 1990, telephone conversation between Brian Tinkler of Honda and Dorothy Nakama of NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel, Mr. Tinkler confirmed that Honda was not requesting confidential treatment of any information provided in your letter. Therefore, a copy of your letter, and this response, will be placed together in NHTSA's public docket. Sincerely, Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking /";

ID: aiam2245

Dear Mr. Chauvin: This responds to your February 20, 1976, question whether this agenc considers Standard No. 222, *School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection*, preemptive of New York State law or regulations mandating a 28-inch-high back and armrests for school bus passenger seating. Section 103(d) provides (15 U.S.C. S1392(d)):; >>>S 103<<< >>>(d) Whenever a Federal Motor vehicle safety standard under thi subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.<<<; Standard No. 222 specifies a formula for minimum seat back height tha necessitates a heights of at least 20 inches. It is the opinion of the NHTSA that any State requirement relating to seat back height, other than one identical to the Federal formula that establishes a minimum height of 20 inches, is preempted under S 103(d).; The second sentence of S 103(d) clarifies that the limitation on safet regulations of general applicability does not prevent governmental entities from specifying additional safety features in vehicles purchased for their own use. Thus, New York State or its political subdivisions could specify a seat back height higher than 20 inches in the case of public school buses. The second sentence does not, however, permit these governmental entities to specify safety features that prevent the vehicle or equipment from complying with applicable safety standards. A school bus manufacturer must continue to comply with all applicable standards.; There are presently no requirements in Standard No. 222 dealing wit armrests on school bus passenger seating. The question, therefore, becomes whether the Federal safety standards on school bus seating performance were intended generally to cover this aspect of performance, analogously to the situation in which Standard 108 was held to be preemptive in *Motorcycle Industry Council v. Younger*, No. CIV 574-126 (E. D. Cal. 1974). The guiding rule, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in *Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul*, 373 U.S. 132, 141-142 (1963), is 'whether both regulations can be enforced without impairing federal superintendence of the field.' Under the accepted doctrines as set forth in cases such as *Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham*, 393 U.S. 268 (1969), the interpretation of this question by the administering agency is 'of controlling weight unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.'; The NHTSA has determined that the requirement for armrests by New Yor State does not conflict with or otherwise impair our present regulation of school bus passenger seating, and that armrests are not within the intended scope of the present Federal safety standards. Therefore, Standard No. 222 is not preemptive of the New York State regulation of armrests.; Yours truly, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4670

"Dear Mr. Rickert: Thank you for your letter seeking this agency' opinion as to whether the State of Maryland may amend its motor vehicle regulations to permit the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows, for individuals who may desire this for medical reasons. I am pleased to have this opportunity to describe the legal principles that relate to your question. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ('NHTSA') is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that impose requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash. Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not 'render inoperative' any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows 'inoperative' within the meaning of Standard 205. This Federal prohibition is similar to that imposed by section 22-104 of the Maryland Vehicle Law, which provides: A person may not willfully or intentionally remove or alter any safety device or equipment that has been placed on any motor vehicle . . . in compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or requirement of . . . the United States or of this State . . . unless the removal or alteration is permitted by rule or regulation adopted by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administrator. The 'render inoperative' provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which aftermarket tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles. Thus, although section 22-104 appears to preclude aftermarket tinting by any person if the result would be to reduce the level of light transmittance below 70 percent, Maryland may amend its rules or regulations to permit such tinting by individuals, for medical or any other reasons deemed valid by the State. However, Maryland has no authority to grant any exemptions, including medical exemptions, from the 'render inoperative' prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of Maryland law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements. In adopting Standard 205, NHTSA determined that a minimum light transmittance of 70 percent is necessary to meet the need for motor vehicle safety. This is the same level of light transmittance contained in the Safety Code of the American National Standards Institute. If, as your letter suggests, Maryland is considering permitting vehicle owners to modify their vehicles such that their windows will have a lower level of light transmittance, we would urge you to carefully consider the safety consequences of such an exemption. Please let me know if you need any further information on this subject. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: 001688cmc_DC_acc release

Mr. Robert E. Norton II
Senior Staff Counsel
Daimler Chrysler Corporation
1000 Chrysler Drive CIMS 485-13-62
Auburn Hills, MI 48326-2766

Dear Mr. Norton:

This responds to your letter dated March 12, 2003, in which you inquire about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. You ask if there are objective criteria to evaluate compliance with the requirement under the second sentence of S4.1(e) of FMVSS No. 209 that a "[b]uckle release mechanism shall be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release." As explained below, compliance with S4.1(e) requires viewing that provision of the standard in the context of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole.

In your letter, you question how the agency would evaluate compliance with this provision of S4.1(e). You state that if the provision is read in the context of the entirety of FMVSS No. 209, then compliance with the "accidental release" requirement could be demonstrated by satisfying the performance requirements of S4.3(d)(3) of FMVSS No. 209, which refers to a test procedure set out in S5.2(d)(3). In the alternative, you contend that if compliance with S4.1(e) cannot be ascertained using this test procedure, then this provision of S4.1(e) would be invalid for lack of objective test procedures.

The S4.1(e) requirement that a seat belt buckle be designed to minimize the possibility of accidental release during an impact must be viewed as part of FMVSS No. 209 as a whole. FMVSS No. 209 requires, among other things, that seat belt buckles meet minimum performance and material requirements. S4.3(d)(3) establishes criteria to address accidental release, stating that:

The buckle of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly shall not release under a compressive force of 1779 N applied as prescribed in paragraph S5.2(d)(3). The buckle shall be operable and shall meet the applicable requirement of paragraph S4.4 after the compressive force has been removed.

Under the test procedure in S5.2(d)(3), a curved cylindrical bar is used to apply the compressive force to the buckle.

S4.3(d)(3) was added to FMVSS No. 209 to "eliminate buckle designs that are prone to accidental damage, or that release during the initial phase of the accident." 36 Federal Register 4607; March 10, 1971. S4.3(d)(3) provides an objective standard for minimizing accidental release during an impact, thus providing objective criteria for the requirement under S4.1(e). S4.3(d)(3) does not address accidental release not associated with a crash. Although we recognize that the "accidental release language of S4.1(e) could be read broadly to cover various scenarios, for compliance purpose, we interpret it to only refer to accidental releases that might occur during a crash. Non-crash accidental releases are not regulated by FMVSS No. 209, notwithstanding the arguably broader language of S4.1(e), as the only test procedure designed to address accidental release utilizes a force level much greater than would be contemplated in a non-crash environment.

In an August 31, 1976, letter to Volvo, the agency stated that for buckles unlikely to be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, the requirements of S4.3(d)(3) would not be applicable. While the Volvo letter stated that the original motivation for adopting this requirement was to guard against possible damage to a buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation, the language of the requirement is broad enough to guard against other potential compressive forces as well, as evidenced by the fact that the requirement is not limited to buckles in the seating position with a steering wheel. In response to the notice that proposed extending the crush release requirements to all Type 1 and Type 2 seat belts, commentors did request that the requirement only be made applicable to buckles that could contact the steering wheel. (See comments from Britax and Irvin Industries, Inc. at Docket No. 69-23.) However, the agency did not amend the requirement to limit it to that narrower purpose. Accordingly, any current or future buckle with the likely potential to experience any compressive force during an impact would be required to comply with S4.1(e) and S4.3(d)(3), as tested under S5.2(d)(3).

I hope this addresses your concern. If you have any further questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

ref:209
d.5/22/03