ID: nht79-4.7

DATE: 04/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 15, 1979, concerning the definition of "forward control" vehicle contained in 49 CFR 571.3. Your specific concern is how to measure a vehicle's length to determine if "the steering wheel hub is in the forward quarter of the vehicle length."

Overall vehicle length should be determined by measuring the maximum longitudinal distance between the foremost point on the front bumper face bar and the rearmost point on the rear bumper face bar. In the context of the Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR 581), the agency considers bumper guards to be part of the bumper face bar if they are contacted by the impact ridge of the pendulum test device used in compliance testing (43 F.R. 20804, May, 15, 1978). For the purposes of determining vehicle length, the agency will consider bumper guards as a part of the vehicle bumper face bar and thus included in the measurement of vehicle length. Components such as a permanent or fold-down step which are not associated with the bumper system's function are not considered part of the bumper face bar for the purposes of Part 581 Bumper Standard (43 F.R. 40230, Sept. 11, 1978). Therefore, the agency will not consider a permanent or fold-down step as a part of the bumper face bar for the purposes of determining vehicle length.

I have enclosed for your information a notice of proposed rule-making which would extend Standards No. 201, 203 and 204 to forward control vehicles. The notice also states the agency's intention to eliminate the forward control exemption found in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

February 15, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to request interpretation relating to the NHTSA definition of "forward control."

In determining the front quarter of the vehicle length we need to know what is included in the measurement.

Example would be if the bumper guards on the front bumper are included in the measurement.

Although the vehicle we receive from the manufacturer as a completed vehicle is not certified as a forward control, if we add a step either permanent or fold-up behind the original rear bumper, can this increase in length dimension be used to determine the front quarter of the vehicle?

Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht79-4.8

DATE: 03/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 28, 1979, letter asking about the remanufacturing of vehicles using old chassis and new bodies. In particular, you ask whether these vehicles must comply with the new safety standards.

The remanufacturing operation that you mention need not comply with the new safety standards. Such a remanufactured vehicle may need to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis. Otherwise, there might be a rendering inoperative of the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards. I am enclosing a copy of an interpretation that discusses the remanufacturing issue.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

February 28, 1979

Office Of The Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: Body Re-Mount

Dear Mr. Tilton:

We are inquiring with respect to the mounting of a "new" body on an "old" chassis.

In reviewing previous rulings, we find numerous references to the opposite e.g. "new" chassis - "old" body.

It is our understanding that the chassis since it constitutes what is considered the "motor vehicle" is the ruling factor. In other words, any replacement body should and must meet at least the Federal Standards in effect at the time of the manufacturing date of the chassis. It is preferred that the body meet the Federal Standards in effect at the time of body's manufacture.

While you personally may not handle this particular segment of the standards, we would appreciate your forwarding our inquiry to the proper party.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht79-4.9

DATE: 07/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Daniel K. Akaka; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 21, 1979, telephone request asking how automobile dealers can determine when they must sell school buses as opposed to regular vans.

The key factors in making this determination are the purpose for which the vehicle will be used and the passenger carrying capacity of the vehicle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the school bus safety standards in response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). In defining "schoolbus", Congress drew upon NHTSA's definition of "bus", i.e., any motor vehicle, including a van, designed to carry more than 10 persons. Congress stated that the term "schoolbus" means "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers . . . and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting . . . students to or from school or events related to such schools." The NHTSA concluded from this mandate that any vehicle that is a bus and will be used on a regular and recurring basis to transport school children must comply with school bus safety standards. To effect this conclusion, the agency issued a definition of "schoolbus" which is "a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to or from school or related events . . . ."

The effect of the 1974 amendments and the agency's definition is to require any new bus that is sold to transport school children on a regular basis to comply with the safety standards. Compliance is required whether a bus is used regularly to transport students 100 percent of the time or whether it regularly transport students only 10 percent of the time while otherwise transporting adults.

ID: nht80-1.1

DATE: 01/03/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Glen Brinks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information concerning the Federal safety regulations applicable to motorcycle fuel tanks and motorcycle trailers.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard regarding fuel system intergrity, Standard No. 301-75, currently does not apply to motorcycles. Two safety standards would be applicable to the manufacture of motorcycle trailers: Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment and Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars.

The manufacturer of a trailer, including a motorcycle trailer, would have to certify the compliance of the trailer to these two safety standards. Part 566 of our regulations, Manufacturer Identification (49 CFR 566), specifies information which must be submitted to the NHTSA by manufactures of motor vehicles, including trailers. Part 567, Certification (49 CFR 567), specifies the content and location of the certification label or tag that must be attached to motor vehicles regulated by our standards. I am enclosing an information sheet that explains where you can obtain copies of these safety standards and regulations.

ENC.

November 23, 1979

Joseph Levin NHTSA

Dear Mr. Levin;

Some time ago, you were a big help to me when I was working on a kit car article for Road & Track magazine. Currently, I am working on another project requiring a knowledge of NHTSA regulations and I wonder if you could help out again. Could you send me a copy of the NHTSA regulations relating to 1) motorcycle fuel tank construction, type of fittings required, fuel lines, etc. and 2) motorcycle trailers? Thank you very much for your consideration.

Glenn Brinks

ID: nht80-1.10

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requested an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacement sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.

Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean that NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group November 16, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Ref: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Gentlemen:

We are considering marking our P-series tires with the alpha-numeric size they replace shown below in parenthesis. An example would be as follows:

P205/75 R15 (replaces FR78-15)

Similarly, we are considering marking our 230-15 tire as follows:

230-15 (replaces 225-15)

The 230-15 can be used on all cars that are fitted with 225-15.

Please advise us if such markings would be in violation of FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. Standard.

Your quick response would be appreciated since we are planning to start these programs shortly.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht80-1.11

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent letter and visit to the NHTSA regarding the proper designated seating capacity for the Volvo 262C Coupe. The rear bench seat in this vehicle is 53.15 inches wide and has two depressed areas with contoured upholstery to fashion bucket seats. You ask whether the seat may be designated as having only two seating positions.

It is the agency's opinion that the rear seat in the Volvo 262C Coupe must have three designated seating positions. The definition of "designated seating position" provides, in part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, "unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating" (49 CFR 571.3). The rear seat in the Volvo Coupe is substantially over this 50-inch caveat in the definition, since it has more than 53 inches of hip room. Further, the seat design is not such that the center position cannot be used for seating. The center position is well padded on both the seat cushion and the seat back and there is no impediment to use of the position. This was demonstrated when several persons sat at the center position when your demonstration vehicle was brought to the agency.

Your letter mentions that the Volvo Coupe has less head room than other Volvo models, yet there is sufficient head room even at the center position for large persons to occupy the seat. Therefore, we do not believe that the vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used. The fact that the two outboard positions of the rear seat are aesthetically designed to appear as bucket seats is irrelevant, since the center position is a well-padded integral part of the entire bench seat. Other current models have the same type bucket seat appearance in the rear seat, yet because of hip room have three designated seating positions. You might examine the 1978 Oldsmobile Regency Sedan, for example.

We noted in the demonstration model that the rear seat of the Volvo Coupe has an arm rest at the center position that folds into the seat back. If the design of this arm rest were modified to be permanently attached to the seat cushion, the center position could not be used. The bench seat would then qualify as a two-person seat under the definition of "designated seating position".

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and an examination of the demonstration model brought to the agency. The NHTSA does not pass approval on any vehicle design, for any safety standards, prior to the actual events that underlie certification. It is up to the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles comply with all applicable safety standards and regulations, and to certify the vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

December 7, 1979

Robert Nelson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Nelson:

This letter is sent in response to your request for information concerning the rear seat dimensions of the Volvo 262C Coupe. The width of the seat (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100 (a)) is 1350 mm, 53.15 inches compared to 1430 mm (56.30 in.) for other Volvo vehicles.

We are providing a Volvo Coupe for your inspection on December 11, 1979 at your offices in Washington, D. C. The Volvo Coupe is a limited production vehicle, about 1500 are expected to be sold in the United States this model year. As you know, all other Volvo models (DL, GL, GLE & GT) have a rear seat different from the Coupe and were designed to accommodate three designated rear seating positions. The rear seating depressions and design of the upholstery of the Volvo Coupe are intended to provide occupancy for two persons. The choice of a depression to divide the two seating positions was influenced by the reduced head room, as compared to other Volvo models. Based on these differences from the other Volvo models, we believe that the Volvo Coupe should be classified as a 4 passenger vehicle.

If we can provide any additional information, please let me know.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development

Richard Tearle, Engineer, Regulatory Affairs

ID: nht80-1.12

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Brotherhood Racing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your conversation with Mr. Hugh Oates of my office concerning the manufacture and installation of replacement fuel tanks.

Enclosed please find (1) a copy of a letter concerning the legal implications of replacing a vehicle's fuel tank with a larger tank, (2) a copy of a letter concerning the legal implications of building and installing auxiliary fuel tanks which discusses issues also relevant to replacement fuel tanks and (3) a notice describing how to obtain copies of motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

In addition to the points raised in the enclosed letters, I would like to point out two additional factors. First, please note that if you go into the business of manufacturing replacement fuel tanks you must submit identifying information and a description of the items you produce to this agency in accord with 49 CFR Part 566 (copy enclosed).

Second, as you will note from the enclosed letters, a manufacturer or other person specified in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act who installs an auxiliary or replacement fuel tank in a new or used vehicle must not compromise the vehicle's compliance with relevant safety standards. Thus, in installing replacement fuel tanks you should be aware not only of any effect that your installation may have upon the vehicle's fuel system (see Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301-75, Fuel System Integrity), you should also be aware that your installation might affect, among othert things, the vehicle's braking system (see Safety Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic Brake Systems) or the vehicle's weight as it relates to safety standards concerning tires (see Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims, applicable to passenger cars, and Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars).

I hope that you will find the enclosed material helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Ms. Debra Weiner of my office at 202-426-2992.

ENCLS.

ID: nht80-1.13

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Motor Coach Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 11, 1979, letter asking whether you would be permitted to install a valve in your braking system that would prevent air from reaching the front axle brakes when your vehicle is in reverse. You want to make such a modification to prevent brake chatter when your vehicle is in reverse and question whether such a modification would comply with the requirements of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

Sections S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of the standard establish brake actuation and release times. In an interpretation of those sections (July 23, 1976), the agency stated that the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi were only benchmarks, and that the agency would use either of those values or 70 percent of the maximum pressure in the brake chamber, whichever is lower. You state that this interpretation allows you to install a valve, because the maximum air pressure reaching the front brake chamber when the vehicle is in the reverse gear would be 0 and 70 percent of 0 is 0. Therefore, you suggest that your vehicle would pass the tests in these two sections if tested at 0 psi.

The intent of the July 23 interpretation of the sections was to provide flexibility of designs that incorporate lower air pressures than originally contemplated by the air brake standard. The interpretation was not intended as a device to escape from compliance with the air brake standard by creating a situation where front brakes would be rendered inoperative. Accordingly, the agency limits its July 23, 1976, interpretation to those instances where air brakes are receiving air pressure and are performing as designed to stop the vehicle. Using this limitation on our July 23 interpretation, the NHTSA concludes that your new brake design would violate the standard and, therefore, will not permit the use of the valve that you recommend.

The brake chatter that you refer to in your letter appears to be a problem that occurs only in your vehicles. We have not been made aware of similar problems affecting other manufacturer's vehicles. Accordingly, we must assume that something in your design is creating the chatter problem. We suggest that you alter your brake design in a way that eliminates the chatter problem while maintaining the vehicle's compliance with the air brake standard.

SINCERELY,

December 11, 1979

National Highway Traffic Safety Agency Chief Consul

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION -- STANDARD #121

Gentlemen: We are manufacturers of the MC-9 Crusader Intercity bus. Some of our operators, have experienced a brake chatter, from the front axle, when the coach is in reverse. This does not affect brake performance, but can be annoying to the passengers. As this situation only occurs when the coach is backing up, we question if a value can be inserted into the braking system, to stop the air from the front axle, only when the transmission is in reverse. This control would be automatic, and could not be controlled by the driver (except by shifting into "reverse").

We question if this modification will affect the compliance to Standard #121. Specifically, we are looking at Section S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 which covers apply and Release times. Also, we refer to Mr. Frank Berndt's letter to White Motor Corporation (copy enclosed), which refers to 70% of the maximum air pressure at the brake chamber. In our proposal, this could mean 70% of zero.

We would appreciate your comments on this proposal.

MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES

Ted J. Szkolinicki, Supervisor Mechanical Engineering

ID: nht80-1.14

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 18, 1979, requesting an interpretation as to whether the VIN plate samples you enclosed with your letter comply with the requirements of Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number.

You enclosed two proposed VIN plates in your letter, one for automobiles and one for motorcycles. The VIN plates themselves and the preprinted lettering which appears on them seem to conform to the requirement of Standard No. 115. The lettering is clear and indelible, as required by S4.3, in that it cannot be removed without damage to the surface on which it is printed. Further, the plate when riveted to the vehicle would be considered to be permanently affixed in that it cannot be removed without damage (S4.3). The type face utilized for the lettering consists of capital, cans characters with a minimum height of 4 mm as required by S4.3.1.

The letters stamped on the automobile VIN plate, "SL5322AS000001", can hardly be seen, and would not appear to meet the requirements of S4.3 and S4.4.

ID: nht80-1.15

DATE: 02/08/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance - Enforcement

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DATE: Feb. 8, 1980

SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation of Fuel Tank Capacity as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity

FROM : Chief Counsel

TO : Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, Enforcement

This confirms the oral response previously given by Hugh Oates to your memorandum requesting an interpretation of the term, "capacity", as used in Safety Standard No. 301-75. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard provides that "the fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent ...." You ask whether "capacity" should include the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of the fuel filler pipe when filling a fuel tank for compliance purposes. (Total tank volume = usable capacity + unusable capacity + vapor volume + fluid in filler pipe.) Apparently, the vapor volume can be filled with solvent if the solvent is added very slowly to force the air vapors out of the dome. This has been done in past compliance testing.

It is our opinion that the term, "capacity", should not be interpreted to include the vapor volume in the air dome, since fuel tanks are never filled to this level by vehicle users. Fuel tanks are designed to include an area for fuel vapor and pressure build- up. Vehicle users never fill their tanks so slowly that this area is displaced with fuel. Therefore, it would be an unrealistic test to require manufacturers to fill tanks in this fashion. Moreover, I understand from convervations between our offices that fuel is actually squeezed out of the filler pipe during compliance testing if the tank is filled to this absolute level. This would not seem to be an accurate test of fuel tank integrity, since it is leaks or punctures in the tank itself that generally cause fuel loss in real-world crashes.

In consideration of these facts, we would interpret "capacity" to mean "usable capacity", as used in the vehicle manufacturer's Part I submission to the EPA, plus "unusable capacity" (i.e., the volume of fuel left in the tank when the engine fuel pump sucks air).

I think it should be emphasized that the "usable capacity" should be determined only after the tank has been filled to its "unusable capacity". In other words, when testing a tank that has never been filled, the unusable, residual fuel level should be reached before the "usable capacity" is added to the tank. If this is not done, the actual volume of fuel in the tank will be somewhat below the "usable fuel capacity".

Frank Berndt

February 20, 1980

Note From Tom Grubbs FMVSS 301-75 Safety Compliance Engineer Office or Vehicle Safety Compliance

As of February 20, 1980, all FMVSS 301-75 vehicle compliance tests will use the following fuel tank filling technique:

1. Test vehicle's engine will be "run dry"*.

2. 95% of the "usable capacity" of the fuel tank (as determined from EPA Part I submissions) will be added.

*After "run dry", the fuel left in the tank will be the "unusable capacity".

November 25, 1979

Request for Interpretation of Fuel Tank Capacity as used in FMVSS No. 301-75, "Fuel System Integrity" NEF-31TGr

Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

THRU: Associated Administrator for Enforcement In order to preclude controversies during the FY 1980 FMVSS No. 301-75 vehicle safety compliance testing program, it is requested that an interpretation of "capacity" be issued by your office. At the present time, S7.1.1 of FMVSS No. 301- 75 states, "The fuel tank is filled to any level from 90 to 95 percent of capacity with Stoddard solvent...." The word "capacity" can be interpreted to mean one of the following: 1. Total Tank Volume - The unusable tank capacity plus the usable capacity plus the vapor volume in the air dome plus the volume of solvent in the fuel filler pipe as shown on the attached sketch. In order to completely fill the total tank volume, the solvent must be added slowly to force the air/vapors out of the air dome which is presently being performed by the OVSC testing laboratories. The vehicle manufacturers claim that this is not a realistic fuel tank filling technique.

2. Usable Capacity - The usable capacity of the fuel tank as stated in each vehicle manufacturers' Part I submission to the EPA. Some manufacturers are using 95 percent of this "usable capacity" value for their FMVSS No. 301-75 certification tests. It appears that this would be the most realistic fuel tank filling technique.

The FY 1980 FMVSS No. 301-75 vehicle compliance testing program will be initiated during the first week of January 1980, and it is requested that an interpretation be made prior to that time.

Francis Armstrong

Attachment

NEF-31TGrubbs:vgw:11/21/79:62807

cc: NEF-01 Chron NEF-30 Chron NEF-31 Subj/Chron/TGrubbs/File

LEFT SIDE VIEW OF TYPICAL GM FUEL TANK IN 1980 MODEL

*INSERT DIAGRAM HERE