ID: nht75-2.7

DATE: 11/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Walt Robbins, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 5, 1975, enclosing a copy of your patent for a tire described as a "Radial, Bias Ply Tire" and requesting an interpretation of the labeling requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires -- Passenger Cars. The tire would be constructed with three full body plies: two bias plies (angle 35 degrees) and one radial ply (angle 90 degrees).

S4.3(g) of the standard requires permanent molding of the word "radial" into or onto both sidewalls if the tire is a radial ply tire and, by implication, prohibits the use of the word "radial" if the tire is not a radial ply tire. In S3., "radial ply tire" is defined as:

a pneumatic tire in which the ply cords which extend to the beads are laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread.

The tire you have described is not within the scope of this definition because it includes ply cords extending to the beads which are not laid at substantially 90 degrees to the centerline of the tread. Therefore, the word "radial" must not appear on either sidewall.

SINCERELY,

Walt Robbins Incorporated

June 5, 1975

Mark Schwimmer National Highway Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel

Enclosed is a copy of our patent #3,672,423. I would appreciate it if you would review this and notify me as to what the labeling requirements would be for the tire construction as shown in this patent, with reference to paragraph S4.3, subparagraph h, of MVSS100. As I interpret your labeling requirements, the radial designation would be adequate as this is a full radial ply. In addition to the radial ply, we have two bias plies, so my question to you is should this be designated radial or radial/bias.

I would appreciate an answer as soon as possible inasmuch as we have completed DOT testing and are ready for production. Your cooperation in this matter will be most appreciated.

VENTURE TIRE CORP.

Walter C. Robbins, Jr. President

United States Patent

Duduk

[15] 3,672,423

[45] June 27, 1972

[54] RADIAL, BIAS PLY TIRE

[72] Inventor: Alexander Duduk, 2300 S 24th Road Apt. #731, Arlington, Va 22206

[22] Filed: April 7, 1970

[21] Appl. No.: 26,411

Patent Omitted.

ID: nht94-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 8, 1994

FROM: Kenneth Sghia-Hughes -- Research Engineer, Solectria Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: Attached to 2/2/95 from Philip R. Recht to Kenneth Sghia-Hughes (A43; Part 301; Std. 102)

TEXT: Dear Sir/Madam:

Solectria Corporation produces electric vehicles (EV's) on the chassis of existing new vehicles and is currently developing a ground-up electric vehicle. In the course of reviewing NHTSA's regulations covering vehicle manufacturers, we have identified qu estions regarding the application of specific standards and regulations to our electric vehicles. Solectria Corporation requests a formal interpretation of these regulations with regard to the following issues:

1. 49 CFR 571.301, FMVSS #301 -- Fuel system integrity

Opinions vary as to the applicability of this standard to electric vehicles with no petroleum-based fuel source. The stated purpose of the standard is "to reduce deaths and injuries occurring from fires that result from fuel spillage. . . . and resul ting from ingestion of fuels during siphoning." The standard states that it applies to "passenger cars, and to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses that have a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. . . . .", implying that it applies to all passenger vehicles, but to only those trucks with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less and that use fuel with a boiling point above 32 degrees F. On the face of it, this standard appears not to apply to electric veh icles with no liquid fuel, but enough doubt as to NHTSA's interpretation of this standard with respect to EV's exists that Solectria requests an official interpretation from NHTSA.

2. 49 CFR 571.102. FMVSS #102 -- Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect

This standard is written so that it literally only applies to vehicles with manual or automatic transmission. Most of our vehicles delivered to date and all of the models currently in production have a single speed transmission which requires no shif ting, either manual or automatic. Solectria vehicles nevertheless meet the requirements of this standard for automatic transmission vehicles, in keeping with what Solectra believes is the intent, if not the letter, of the regulation. Solectria requests a clarification of this standard with regard to single speed transmissions, as commonly encountered in electric vehicles. If deemed applicable to single speed transmission vehicles. Solectria requests that S3.1.3 Starter interlock, be rewritten or inte rpreted to include the initial activation of EV motor controllers as well as engine starters.

Please feel free to contact me for any additional information.

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-5.31

DATE: September 3, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Thomas R. Steinhagen -- Custom Accessories, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-91 from Thomas R. Steinhagen to Dee Fujita (OCC 6298)

TEXT:

This responds to your August 1, 1991 letter to Ms. Fujita of my off asking whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 107, Reflecting Surfaces, applies to a replacement windshield wiper arm and blade sold at retail, the end consumer.

As Ms. Fujita informed you in a July 31, 1991 telephone conversation, generally speaking, the answer is no. Standard 107 applies to new motor vehicles--passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks and buses (paragraph S2 of Standard 107)--and not to items of motor vehicle equipment, such as replacement wiper arms and blades. Thus, replacement wiper arms and blades may be sold to consumers without violating Federal law, even if the component does not meet Standard 107.

However, S108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business from "rendering inoperative" any device or element of design installed in or on a vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. This prohibition applies to both new and used vehicles. If a person in the aforementioned categories installed on a vehicle a wiper arm and blade that did not meet the specular gloss requirements of Standard 107, it would be rendering inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with Standard 107. Violations of S108 of the Safety Act are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. The prohibition of S108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to individual vehicle owners who alter their own vehicles. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages vehicle owners not to tamper with vehicle safety equipment if the modification would degrade the safety of the vehicle.

In addition to the above, you should be aware that manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If you or NHTSA determines that a safety-related defect exists, you must notify purchasers of your product and remedy the problem free of charge. Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect are subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

ID: nht91-6.37

DATE: October 23, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: None

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-6-91 to Taylor Vinson

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of September 6, 1991, to Mr. Vinson, asking whether a vehicle you are developing would be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. I am pleased to be able to explain our law and regulations for you.

At the outset, I would like to make clear that the National Traffic Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. For this reason, NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classification before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may reexamine the manufacturer's classification during the course of any enforcement actions. We will, however, tentatively state how we believe we would classify this vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. It is important that you understand that these tentative statements of classification are based entirely on our understanding of the information presented in your letter to us. These tentative statements about the vehicle's classification may change after NHTSA has had an opportunity to examine the vehicle itself or otherwise acquire additional information about the vehicle.

With those caveats, we believe that the vehicle referenced in your letter could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle for the purposes of our safety standards. The term "multipurpose passenger vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR S571.3 as "a motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed to carry 10 persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." In your letter, you state that the vehicle's chassis should be considered a truck chassis because it "was originally designed to provide cargo-carrying capability as well as to permit rough road and off the road vehicle operation." Additionally, you state that the approach and departure angles and the running clearance dimensions for this vehicle are more similar to other vehicles which have been classified by their manufacturers as multipurpose passenger vehicles than vehicles that have been classified as passenger cars. Based upon this description, it appears to us that this vehicle could be classified as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

I hope you find this information helpful. The version of your letter that has been placed in the public docket has all the information for which you requested confidential treatment deleted from it. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht70-1.14

DATE: 05/18/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Rodolfo A. Diaz; NHTSA

TO: Calhoun & Phelan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter of April 29, 1970, to the National Commission on Products Safety, that has been referred to this office.

In your letter you ask for our advice as to whether or not there are any accepted standards for passenger car automobile tires such as weight and size limits. We do have standards for passenger car tires such as weight limit versus ply rating and there are accepted tests to determine the reliability of tires. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 has been established for that purpose. The Standard's requirements are for labeling, which includes maximum inflation pressure and maximum load rating, strength, continuous load-carrying endurance and high speed performance under load.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims - Passenger Cars, requires, among other things, a placard, permanently affixed to the glove compartment door or an equally accessible location. The placard must contain all of the information spelled out in Part S.4.3 of that Standard, a copy of which is contained in the enclosed booklet on page 19. Tire labeling requirements along with test procedures are listed under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, on pages 12 through 19.

The tire to which you refer is a 2-ply 4-ply rated tire. The load ratings for a 855-14 tire can be found on page 15 of the enclosed booklet. The maximum load rating is 1,770 lbs. at the maximum inflation pressure of 32 p.s.i.

It is important for you to note that the test procedures have to do with new tires. We have no procedures for testing tires that have failed.

Although we do not become involved in private litigations, there is a publication for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, under the title, "Automobile Accident Litigation - A Report to the Federal Judicial Center to the Department of Transportation," that might be of interest to you. The price for the publication is $ 2.75.

We are also enclosing the following publications:

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966

Summary of 1968 Compliance Tests Arranged by Standard, that includes a General 855-14 tire and, a form letter explaining the Bureau's position relative to test results and where they might be obtained.

We trust this information will be useful to you.

ID: nht68-1.43

DATE: 06/21/68

FROM: ROBERT M. O'MAHONEY -- NHTSA; CONCURRENCE BY GEORGE C. NIELD

TO: Recreational Vehicle Institute, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Mr. Bridwell has asked that I reply to your letter of June 4, 1968.

In your letter you refer to (1) an earlier letter dated November 8, 1967, requesting confirmation of your understanding of the application of the motor vehicle safety standards to recreational vehicles; and (2) a Petition for Reconsideration of the Chassis-cab regulation filed March 19, 1968.

With regard to your letter of November 8, as you know from conversations with members of the staff of the Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service and the Chief Counsel's Office this letter was misplaced. By letter of May 8, you were good enough to send a copy of the letter of November 8, noting that of the eleven questions asked two have not been clarified by some action taken by the Federal Highway Administration. The unanswered questions are quoted and answered below:

Question --- 3. "The inside mirror need not have the field of view prescribed by Paragraph S3.1.1 of Standard No. 111 (even to the point of providing no view of the road behind a truck camper if the camper mounted on the truck obstructs the driver's vision) provided an outside mirror is installed on the passenger's side of the truck cab, as required by Paragraph S3.2.2."

Answer -- You are correct in your understanding of Standard No. 111. Subparagraph S3.2.2 of Standard No. 111 specifies that if the inside mirror required by S3.1 does not meet the field of view requirements of S3.1.1, an outside mirror of substantially unit magnification shall be installed on the passenger's side.

Question --- 10. "Everything said above concerning truck campers applies equally to truck caps, which are enclosures (roof, sidewalls and ends but no floor and usually no built in equipment) mounted on a pick-up truck.'

Answer --- Truck caps which you describe are considered to be in the same category as slide-in campers and are items of motor vehicle equipment for use in motor vehicles. As such truck caps must meet the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials - Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, Buses, and Motorcycles.

With regard to your Petition for Reconsideration filed March 19, 1968, you note in a letter of May 13, 1968 that three matters raised in the Petition are still unanswered and further action is required. The problems you raise, as you know, are complex. The entire problem of the applicability of the standards to vehicles produced in the multi-stage is still under consideration.

ID: nht91-3.33

DATE: April 29, 1991

FROM: Takashi Odaira -- Chief Representative, Emission & Safety, Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.

TO: P.J. Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Mr. Fukuhara -- ISZ-J, R56; Mr. Sakai -- ISZ-J, R56; Mr. Watanabe -- ITCA-Det.; ISZA -- Washington, D.C.

TITLE: Subject: Rear Seat Requirements - Side Impact (FMVSS 214)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Takashi Odaira (A38; Std. 214)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request your agency's interpretation regarding the applicability of the rear seat requirements FMVSS 214, "Side door strength" (55 FR 45722) published on October 30, 1990, in the context of Isuzu 2-door Coupe.

The Standard specifies ". . . the rear seat requirements do not apply to passenger-cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures."

The point of our questions is whether Isuzu 2-door Coupe qualifies for this exemption.

In this vehicle, when the SID dummy is seated at the rear outboard passenger position according to the specified positioning procedures, the dummy's head comes into contact with the roof and backlight glass which have steep slopes. To avoid the interference, in our test, the head was tilted forward as much as possible and, in addition, the upper torso was also tilted forward, away from the seat back. Only in this way, could we accommodate the dummy in the seating area without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point. This condition is shown in photographs 1, 2, 3 and Figure 1 attached here.

This condition, however, obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.1.3(a) and (b), which provides, "The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back." In Isuzu 2-door Coupe, the dummy's upper torso must be tilted away from the seat back while adjusting its head forward as the Agency says in the preamble to this Standard (55 FR 45737, first column).

Therefore, our interpretation is that said Coupe cannot "accommodate" the SID dummy and thus the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it.

We would appreciate receiving your view regarding this interpretation and understanding. Your prompt response would be most helpful.

Attachments

Figure 1 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (text and graphics omitted);

Photograph 1 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted);

Photograph 2 -- SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted);

Photograph -- 3 SID dummy accommodation - Isuzu 2-door coupe; (graphics omitted)

ID: nht88-2.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/88

FROM: JUANITA P. DAVISON

TO: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VEHICLE CRASH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/22/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- HNTSA TO JUANITA P. DAVISON, REDBOOK A33(2), STANDARD 208

TEXT: Please advise me to whom I can make some input about the automatic type seat belts. I have a 1987 Toyota and have also seen this type seat belt used in Ford makes.

Please tell me for what purpose this design has been used. Is it to meet some safety regulation? Or is it some gimmick of the auto manufactuer?

This belt is a nuisance and most inconvenient. A person is not fully belted unless the lap belt is also pulled in place. How much simpler to make one move accomplish the process of being fully belted.

This shoulder belt takes away the roominess of the front. It is in the way when getting in the car with a handbag or briefcase or package which needs to be placed elsewhere in the car. I wear glasses on a chain and I have to always hold this out of the way when the shoulder belt in in position. Passengers not familiar with the action are startled and confused by it. To disengage the belt after stopping the motor and just sitting in the car, the door has to be opened. This shoulder belt requires a sp ecial unlocking mechanism in case of emergency after impact. What if that is damaged during a collision. It is much more complicated than the push button used to release the lap belt (and combined lap and shoulder belts in other cars).

This is a travesty imposed on the ones who were not aware of the inconvenience and the fallacy of "automatic seat belts". I still have to buckle the lap belt and then be ready for the shoulder belt to rivet in place when the motor is turned on. The rev erse process when leaving the car. There is so much lost motion besides all the inconvenience just fr the sake of having a shoulder belt forceably used. Of course all I have to do is take the shoulder belt and lift it back over my head if I don't want to use it while driving. But I do want to be fully belted and would like the one step method. Can I legally disengage the motorized mechanism with the shoulder belt in place so that I can just lift it over my head? This would eliminate some of the dra wbacks.

Juanita P. Davison

(P.S.) I have also been told it is not safe to wear a shoulder belt without the lap belt, because of possibility of choking!

ID: nht88-2.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/18/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: FRANK V. TANZELLA -- TEK TRON, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-5-88, FROM FRANK V. TANZELLA, TO NHTSA, OCC-1857

TEXT: This responds to your letter of April 5, 1988, concerning the installation of credit card mobile telephones into taxi cabs that already have been sold to the first purchaser. You noted that you may have to cut into the back of the front seat in order to provide clearance for the phone. You asked what safety regulations would apply to this situation and whether any additional testing would be necessary.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); the Safety Act) provides that: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative any device or el ement of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . For purposes of this paragraph, the term 'motor vehicle repair business' means any person who holds himself out to the p ublic as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation."

Standard No. 207, Seating Systems (49 CFR @ 571.207; copy enclosed) sets forth minimum performance requirements for the seating systems installed in new passenger cars, such as the taxi cabs you plan to modify. Assuming that your company would be a "mot or vehicle repair business" for the purposes of this contract, this statutory provision prohibits you from knowingly making any modifications that would render inoperative the taxis' compliance with any safety standards. You should be aware that by addi ng the telephone you will be adding weight to the seat. This change in weight may effect the general performance requirements in S4.2. Nevertheless, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act does not require your company to test vehicles aft er installing the mobile telephone, to ensure that the vehicles continue to comply with Standard No. 207. Instead, the "render inoperative" provision in the Safety Act requires your company to carefully compare your planned installation instructions wit h the requirements of Standard No. 207, to determine if installing the mobile telephones in accordance with your planned

installation procedures would result in the vehicles no longer complying with Standard No. 207. If it would, you will have to devise some alternative means of installing the mobile telephones in the taxis. If your planned installation procedures do not render inoperative the taxis' compliance with Standard No. 207, you may follow those procedures without violating any provisions of the Safety Act.

Enclosures

ID: 17570.drn

Mr. Mark Recchia
Liaison Engineer
Fiat Auto R & D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473

Dear Mr. Recchia:

This responds to your March 18, 1998, request for an interpretation whether a vehicle identification number (VIN) placed inside a motor vehicle passenger compartment may be divided into two lines. You explain that Maserati "uses this practice in Europe because of space restrictions, and its acceptance in the United States would facilitate the production of U.S.- version Maserati cars." Assuming the VIN meets all other requirements of 49 CFR Part 565 Vehicle Identification Number Requirements, the answer is yes.

In Part 565, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) specifies the format, content, and physical requirements for a VIN system and its installation. General requirements for a VIN system are specified at Section 565.4 General requirements. Although NHTSA is aware only of VINs written in one line, nothing in Section 565.4(f) prohibits a VIN from being written in two lines. Since there is no prohibition against it, Maserati may write the passenger compartment VIN in two lines.

I note that in the example of the VIN you have provided, the first line of the VIN is preceded by a star, followed by the first nine digits of the VIN, then another star. The second line of the VIN begins with a star, followed by the last eight digits of the VIN, then another star. These stars would be considered "dividers" in the VIN. In a letter of November 20, 1978, to Volkswagen of America, Inc. (copy provided), NHTSA stated the following about VIN dividers:

'[d]ividers' which would appear at the beginning and the end of the VIN would not be considered part of the VIN and, therefore, would not be regulated by the standard. Care should be taken, however, to ensure that the dividers are neither alphabetic nor numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.

As stated in the letter to Volkswagen, Fiat and Maserati must ensure that any VIN dividers not be in alphabetic or numeric characters which might be mistaken for part of the VIN.

You state that the attached diagram is "from a European application." We cannot determine from your letter whether the VIN location in the diagram meets 49 CFR 565.4(f) which states that the VIN shall be readable "through the vehicle glazing under daylight lighting conditions by an observer having 20/20 vision (Snelling) whose eye-point is located outside the vehicle adjacent to the left windshield pillar." Before being sold in the U.S., the VIN on the passenger car must meet this and all other requirements specified in Part 565.

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

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosure
d.7/15/98
ref:565