ID: nht93-5.2

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: June 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TO: Charles H. Taylor -- U.S. House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-3-93 from Charles H. Taylor to Jackie Lowey (OCC 8735).

TEXT: This responds to your letter of June 3, 1993, to the Acting Secretary for Legislative Affairs, asking the Department of Transportation (DOT) "to reconsider its rules regarding the sale of surplus HMMMV (Humvee) military vehicles to law enforcement organizations." You have enclosed correspondence from your constituent, Sheriff Long of Buncombe County with respect to this matter. Although your letter states that a letter from the Department of Defense to Sheriff Long is also enclosed, we did not receive it.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the component within DOT that establishes and enforces the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) under the authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. In recognition of the fact that compliance with the FMVSS could interfere with the ability of a military vehicle to perform its intended task, we have always exempted from compliance with the FMVSS any motor vehicle that is manufactured for, and sold directly to, the Armed Forces of the United States in conformity with contractual specifications.

When such a vehicle has reached the end of its useful military life, the question arises as to its proper disposition. NHTSA has no authority over the disposition that any owner wishes to make of his motor vehicle, whether civilian or military in nature, thus we have no "rules" to reconsider, as you have requested. The Department of Defense (DOD), however, asks our advice on disposal of surplus vehicles; we provide it and DOD appears to follow it. However, in the last analysis, it is DOD's policy that governs the disposal of surplus military motor vehicles.

With respect to the HMMMV, we have advised DOD that we deem it not in the interests of traffic safety to sell for civilian use a motor vehicle that is not in compliance with the FMVSS. We recognize that there is a competing public interest in recovery of Federal funds to the extent practicable but, in our view, it is outweighed by the interest in safety. Given the fact that HMMMVs are now available that meet the FMVSS, we have further advised DOD to consult with the HMMMV's manufacturer to determine whether military vehicles might be retrofitted to comply with the FMVSS. If this can be accomplished, NHTSA would have no objection to the sale of retrofitted military HMMMVs for civilian use.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht93-5.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1993

FROM: Cary Klingner -- Trison Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Cary Klingner (A41; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)h

TEXT:

TRISON INC. has developed a "Daytime Running Lights" module. The product keeps the low beam headlamps on whenever the vehicles engine is running. The module is placed under the hood and can be installed by any car owner. The unit is transparent to the vehicles lighting system thus allowing the headlamp and marking light switch to override it at any time. The product connects to the battery positive terminal, the highbeam headlamp, the lowbeam headlamp and one simply wraps around one spark plug wire.

The unit was developed because of the Minnesota law that requires headlamps to be on during daylight inclement weather. This law has created a problem in that some people forget to turn on their lights when required, or forget to turn them off when they leave their vehicle, which runs down the battery. Our unit will alleviate both problems if the driver does not override the module with the vehicle headlamp switch. The Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated.

We understand that federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept and we would like to market this product nationwide. Would you review our safety device and give us an opinion as to whether it complies with the regulations.

Thank you for your time, your response will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht93-5.21

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1993

FROM: Cary Klingner -- Trison Inc.

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/93 from John Womack (signature by Kenneth N. Weinstein) to Cary Klingner (A41; Std. 108; VSA 108(a)(2)(A)h

TEXT:

TRISON INC. has developed a "Daytime Running Lights" module. The product keeps the low beam headlamps on whenever the vehicles engine is running. The module is placed under the hood and can be installed by any car owner. The unit is transparent to the vehicles lighting system thus allowing the headlamp and marking light switch to override it at any time. The product connects to the battery positive terminal, the highbeam headlamp, the lowbeam headlamp and one simply wraps around one spark plug wire.

The unit was developed because of the Minnesota law that requires headlamps to be on during daylight inclement weather. This law has created a problem in that some people forget to turn on their lights when required, or forget to turn them off when they leave their vehicle, which runs down the battery. Our unit will alleviate both problems if the driver does not override the module with the vehicle headlamp switch. The Minnesota law only requires that the headlamps be on so with our module no other lights or markers will be illuminated.

We understand that federal regulations were modified earlier this year that may affect this concept and we would like to market this product nationwide. Would you review our safety device and give us an opinion as to whether it complies with the regulations.

Thank you for your time, your response will be greatly appreciated.

ID: nht76-5.18

DATE: 03/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Wenke; Burge & Taylor

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your February 10, 1976, letter concerning the determination of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for boat trailers.

You have presented the following two examples:

GVWR -- 3300; GAWR -- 2970 and

GVWR -- 3000; GAWR -- 2700.

Assuming that 10 percent of the trailer's loaded weight is carried by the towing vehicle, each example reflects a permissible relationship between the GVWR and the GAWR. Your letter indicates that your client presently provides a GVWR figure of 3000 pounds,

based on the load carrying capacity determined when the trailer is not connected to a towing vehicle.

If by this you mean that the boat trailer's axle system has a load carrying capacity of 3000 pounds, then the trailer would actually be entitled to a GAWR of 3000 pounds and a GVWR of 3333 pounds. Your client is free, of course, to establish more conservative load ratings. However, the GAWR should not be less than 9/10 of the accompanying GVWR.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

WENKE, BURGE & TAYLOR

February 10, 1976

Richard B. Dyson, Esq. Assistant Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Your File No. N40-30

Dear Mr. Dyson:

Thank you for your letter of January 15, 1976 concerning the determination of Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) and Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) for a boat trailer.

I want to confirm with you my understanding of your letter by an example so that I can be certain I am properly advising my client. The trailers manufactured by my client presently provide a certification that provides a GVWR figure based on the load carrying capacity determined when the trailer is not connected to a towing vehicle. That is, a typical trailer would carry ratings as follows: GVWR - 3000; GAWR - 3000. Assuming, for example, that 10% of the trailer weight and load is carried by the towing vehicle, it would appear that my client is presently providing a GAWR higher than necessary. Can the label be changed to reflect a lower GAWR in either of the following ways:

GVWR - 3000

GAWR - 2700 or

GVWR - 3300

GAWR - 2970

Thank you for your consideration and please call me collect at the above number if you should have any questions regarding this matter.

Very truly yours, John F. Evans

ID: nht76-5.19

DATE: 12/13/76

FROM: R. L. CARTER FOR JOHN W. SNOW -- NHTSA

TO: Department of Education; New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 9, 1976, requesting information on the legal aspects of the change in the definition of "school bus."

Effective April 1, 1977, the definition of "school bus" in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR @ 571.3) will read as follows:

"School bus" means a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

The definition of "bus" will continue to read as follows:

"Bus" means a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed for carrying more than 10 persons.

The new definition of school bus will include many of the van-type vehicles that are classified as Type II school vehicles under Highway Safety Program Standard No. 17. If a Type II van is designed to carry more than 10 persons, and it it is sold for purposes that include "carrying students to and from school or related events," it will have to be sold with all the equipment specified for school buses by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. It will therefore have to have school bus lights as specified by the standard on lighting (49 CFR @ 571.108).

Our experience with the comparative accident patterns of Type I and Type II buses does not justify the use of different lighting systems for the two types. In view of Congress's expressed desire to have the school bus standards uniformly applicable to buses of all sizes, we consider it appropriate to apply the lighting standard to all school buses.

We understand your concern with the effects that the newly applicable requirements will have on your purchase of Type II vans. However, we are persuaded that the requirements are reasonable and that they will protect school children.

If we can be of further assistance, please let us know.

ID: nht76-5.2

DATE: 08/31/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

COPYEE: ALLIED CHEMICAL CORP.; U.S. TESTING CO., INC.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your April 6, 1976, request for interpretations regarding certain sections of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, when applied to the continuous loop seat belt assemblies provided on current Volvo vehicles.

Paragraphs S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify performance requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and upper torso restraint portions of a belt system, tested separately and in combination. You ask for verification of your interpretation that the requirements for separate testing of pelvic and upper torso portions are inapplicable to a continuous loop seat belt, on the basis that this type system "can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint." Your letter includes an illustration of your test apparatus for determining compliance with paragraph S4.4(b), and you request verification that your procedure is correct.

Section S5.3(b) of the standard sets forth the test methods that would be used in a determination of whether a Type 2 seat belt assembly conforms to the requirements of S4.4(b). Paragraph S4.4(b)(1) specifies that the pelvic restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 2,500 pounds, and S4.4(b)(2) specifies that the upper torso restraint shall withstand a force of not less than 1,500 pounds. The Volvo continuous loop belt systems are subject to these requirements. A recent NHTSA interpretation letter to Toyo Kojyo (copy enclosed) on the same subject sets forth the responsibilities of the manufacturer in cases where the specified test procedures may not be entirely suitable to a new safety component design. In testing continuous loop belt systems for compliance with S4.4(b)(1) and (2), the agency has interpreted S5.3(b) to necessitate the use of a clamp in the same fashion as suggested by Toyo Kojyo to ensure that the force is applied to the appropriate portion of belt webbing and hardware. It must be understood, of course, that the NHTSA cannot approve a manufacturers's test procedure as the basis of due care in advance of the actual events that underlie certification. It is impossible for the agency to foresee whether the various aspects of a particular test procedure will be conducted in a proper fashion, based solely on a written description of that test procedure.

In the second part of your letter you asked whether the buckle crush requirements of paragraph S4.3(d)(3) of Standard No. 209, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to Volvo seat belt buckles and, if so, whether Volvo's interpretation as to how the test should be conducted is correct.

It is true that the buckle requirements were originally included in the standard to guard against possible damage to the buckle caused by the steering wheel in a crash situation. Since the issuance of the standard, new seat belt assembly designs have been developed in which the belt buckle is located between the front seats. As you pointed out in your letter, these buckles are not likely to be contacted by the steering wheel in a crash situation.

In view of the significant design changes that have occurred, the agency has reconsidered its 1972 interpretation to United States Testing Company on this subject. Because it is unlikely that any of these buckles would be damaged by compressive forces in a crash, we have determined that the requirements are inappropriate. Therefore, we conclude that the existing S4.3(d)(3) buckle requirements are not applicable to buckles that are located between bucket seats and attached to the console or to the end of a rigid cable or bar.

SINCERELY,

April 6, 1976

Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Interpretation of FMVSS 209 Demonstration Procedures

FMVSS 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies, specifies in detail performance requirements which must be met by automotive seat belt assemblies. The manner in which conformance with these requirements is to be demonstrated is outlined in S5 of FMVSS 209. Both the performance requirements and the demonstration procedures reflect the design characteristics of those types of seat belt assemblies commonly in use when the standard was written. We have experienced difficulty in applying these requirements to the single loop type seat belt assembly employed on current Volvo vehicles.

Attached are a discussion of section S4.4(b) and a discussion of sections S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3) of FMVSS 209 outlining our interpretation of how the requirements of FMVSS 209 apply to single loop type seat belt assemblies. Also attached are illustrations of the Volvo single loop seat belt assembly. Your verification that our interpretation of FMVSS 209, as stated in the attached discussions, is consistent with the requirements of FMVSS 209 would be appreciated.

Any questions on this matter may be addressed to the undersigned. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this request.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Engineering and Development

Donald J. Gobeille, Jr. Product Safety Engineer

Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.3(d)(3) and S5.2(d)(3)

S5.2(d)(3) specifies that a seat belt buckle shall be subjected to a compressive force of 400 pounds applied ". . . anywhere on a test line that is coincident with the centerline of the belt extended through the buckle . . ." (alternative 1) or ". . . on any line that extends over the center of the release mechanism and intersects the extended centerline of the belt at an angle of 60 degrees . . ." (alternative 2). The requirements which shall be met, when tested in this manner, are found in S4.3(d)(3).

The intent of these requirements is expressed in Docket 69-23, Notices 1 and 2, published on March 17, 1970 (35 F.R. 4641) and on March 10, 1971 (36 F.R. 4607), respectively, where it is stated that the test will tend to eliminate buckle designs which are prone to accidental damage, or which release during the initial phase of the accident.

For a design where the buckle is rigidly mounted on the floor between the front seats (see attached description), its location protects it from accidental damage and from release during the initial phase of an accident. It is our interpretation that if the buckle crush requirements are at all applicable to buckles of this design and location, they shall be tested in accordance with alternative 1 above and the force shall be applied as indicated on the attached description. The basis for this interpretation is that the only damage which may occur results from compression if the seats are displaced as a result of a side impact, where the protective effect of a belt in any case can be discussed.

Therefore we request you to:

(1) state if the buckle crush requirements of S4.3(d)(3), when tested in accordance with S5.2(d)(3), are applicable to the described type of buckles, and

(2) if so, if our interpretation as to how this test shall be conducted is correct.

Request for Interpretation FMVSS 209 S4.4(b)

S4.4(b) specifies requirements for Type 2 seat belt assemblies. S4.4(b)(1) and (2) specify requirements for components in the pelvic restraint and in the upper torso restraint, respectively. Then S4.4(b)(3) specifies requirements for components which are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints.

A Type 2 seat belt assembly which is designed as a continuous loop seat belt with a sliding locking tongue, can never in real life be subjected to forces only in the pelvic restraint. Therefore we interpret S4.4(b)(1) and (2) as not directly applicable to such a design of seat belts. Only S4.4(b)(3) should apply, which indirectly covers the same aspect of performance. The maximum elongation requirements of S4.4(b)(4) and (5) can be met by limiting the double-roller block travel to 10 inches when the 6000 pounds force is applied.

The breaking strength requirement of S4.4(b)(6) for a webbing cut of the pelvic restraint should be applicable to any webbing cut in a continuous loop seat belt.

In accordance with our interpretation, a continuous loop seat belt assembly should be tested as indicated in the following figure:

As can be seen from this figure, the test set up includes all attachment hardware, and the positions of the components simulate as close as possible their actual positions in a vehicle.

We request that you confirm our interpretation as stated above.

(Graphics omitted) Part of drawing No 1290538

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht76-5.20

DATE: 06/30/76

FROM: J. WOMACK FOR F. BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 24, 1976, letter concerning the label required by @ 567.4(g) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification.

The certification label is required by paragraph (g) (3) to include "'GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RATING' or 'GVWR' followed by the appropriate value in pounds . . ." Paragraph (g) (4) specifies a similar requirement for Gross Axle Weight Ratings.

You have pointed out that the Canadian motor vehicle safety regulations require a similar certification label with these weight ratings expressed in kilograms. You have asked whether a single label that expresses the weight ratings in both pounds and kilograms would be permitted by 49 CFR Part 567. The answer is yes, provided that each kilogram rating, which is optional, appear after the corresponding pound rating, which is required.

Please note that these two ratings differ in legal status. The rating that is expressed in pounds is the official rating for the purposes of the United States Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations. The accompanying equivalent kilogram rating, however, will be considered as optional, supplementary information provided for the guidance of the reader. This distinction is necessary, because the measurement values, including weights, that appear in our safety standards and regulations are specified in exact terms, without tolerances. While a measurement in English units can be "equal" to one in metric units to any preselected number of significant figures, the two can never be exactly equal.

ID: nht76-5.21

DATE: 07/08/76

FROM: JOHN WOMACK FOR FRANK BERNDT -- NHTSA

TO: Kentucky Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Kentucky Manufacturing Company's June 17, 1976, question whether the replacement of the frame of a converter dolly constitutes the manufacture of a new vehicle subject to applicable motor vehicle safety standards when the running gear (the axles, wheels, suspension, and related components sometimes known as a bogie) and the fifth wheel of the damaged converter dolly are reused. This office received clarification from you by telephone that the fifth wheel would be reused, although this was not stated in your letter.

The replacement of the frame is considered a repair by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and not the manufacture of a new vehicle. Thus the operation you describe would not constitute the manufacture of a new trailer that would require certification of compliance with safety standards such as Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

I have enclosed a copy of a recent amendment of NHTSA regulations that permits the rebuilding of trailers without certification in some cases when it was previously prohibited. The details of the conditions under which such rebuilding is allowed are discussed in the preamble of the document.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

KENTUCKY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

June 17, 1976

Frank A. Berndt -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Would the installation of a new frame on a converter dolly require certification to FMVSS-121 if the axle, air brake equipment, wheels & tires are used from the old, damaged unit? The dolly would still carry the old identification, serial number, etc.

Very truly yours,

Glenn W. Dobrick -- Chief Engineer

ID: nht76-5.22

DATE: 03/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Hardings Lane

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 9, 1976, telephone conversation with Mark Schwimmer of this office concerning the meaning of "GVWR" as it appears in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 301-75, Fuel System Integrity.

"GVWR" or "Gross vehicle weight rating" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as:

the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle.

One constraint on this specification is found in @ 567.4(g)(3) of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, which requires that the GVWR shall not

be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. . . .

An information sheet entitled "Where to Obtain Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations" is enclosed for your convenience. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

ID: nht76-5.23

DATE: 06/02/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 6, 1976, request for confirmation that the Honda "MPV" qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle although it is constructed on a "modified" truck chassis.

In our letter to you of April 30, 1976, we concluded that the Honda "MPV" would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle, based upon the assumption that the "MPV" is constructed on a truck chassis. You responded that the "MPV" is constructed on a "modified" truck chassis, and questioned whether the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered this fact in its previous interpretation.

The reference to "truck chassis" in the definition of multipurpose passenger vehicle, 49 CFR Part 571.3(b), is intended to include chassis that were designed and developed for trucks, but which have been produced in a version for use in passenger carrying vehicles. According to your letter and drawings of March 1, 1976, the Honda "MPV" is a passenger version of the Honda TN500 light truck. Since the modification of the chassis in the production of the "MPV" does not appear to be so great that the major characteristics of the truck chassis are destroyed, we confirm our previous determination that the Honda "MPV" qualifies as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.

May 6, 1976

Stephen P. Wood -- Assistant Chief Counsel, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Wood:

Your Ref: N40-30

Thank you for your letter of April 30, regarding the Honda "MPV."

I would like to point out that the chassis upon which the "MPV" is constructed is a modified truck chassis. This is clearly shown in the drawings which I sent to you.

I would like to confirm that this fact was considered in your assumption that the "MPV" is constructed on a truck chassis, and if not does it make any difference to your opinion.

Please call me at the telephone number shown above if you have any questions about this matter.

I look forward to your early response.

Yours truly,

Brian Gill -- Assistant Manager, Safety & Environmental Activities