ID: aiam4452

Dear Ms. Black: This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and Octobe l7, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the l989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulations. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the 'zero' position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the 'zero' position when the engine is turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that 'no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation.' The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires (S4.l.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our understanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the 'zero' position from either of the two adjustment positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load. We hope the information is helpful. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel;

ID: 24365-2.rbm

Ms. Kimberly Boucher
Spartan Motor Chassis, Inc.
1165 Reynolds Road
Charlotte, MI 48813

Dear Ms. Boucher:

This responds to your letter asking whether fire trucks are required to have side door locks that meet the requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 206, Door locks and door retention components (FMVSS No. 206). Your question is addressed below.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agencys functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards. These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. FMVSS No. 206, which generally regulates door latches, hinges and locks, applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, and trucks.

In your letter, you requested NHTSA to make a determination that a fire truck is an incomplete truck rather than a multi-passenger vehicle. You also asked whether it is permissible to have the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) assign a unique vehicle identifier for an incomplete truck,^[1] and whether such an identifier would exempt the vehicle from the side door lock requirements of FMVSS No. 206. In a follow-up conversation with a member of my staff, you clarified that your concern was whether the incomplete vehicles manufactured by your company are trucks or multipurpose passenger vehicles, not whether the vehicle was incomplete or finally manufactured.

NHTSA defines vehicle types according to their particular attributes in 49 CFR 571.3. A multipurpose passenger vehicle is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a low-speed vehicle or 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." A truck is defined as a "motor vehicle with motive power, except a trailer, designed primarily for the transportation of property or special purpose equipment."

The Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. NHTSA does not approve or endorse any vehicle classifications before the manufacturer itself has classified a particular vehicle. NHTSA may examine the appropriateness of the manufacturer's classification in the context of an enforcement action.

While we can provide opinions about vehicle classification, you do not provide sufficient information in your letter to offer a specific opinion. I note, however, that we would generally expect vehicles commonly referred to as fire trucks to be considered trucks under our regulations, since they are designed primarily for the transportation of firefighting equipment. It is possible that a vehicle operated by a fire department that is designed primarily to transport passengers rather than specialized equipment could be characterized as a multi-purpose vehicle.

As to your question regarding the requirements for side door locks on trucks, I note that the response depends on what type of door the truck is equipped with. FMVSS No. 206 applies to all doors other than folding doors, roll-up doors, doors designed to be easily attached to or detached from the vehicle, and doors equipped with a wheelchair lift that is attached to an alarm system. These doors are excluded from the standard pursuant to S4(c). Additionally, FMVSS No. 206 only regulates the components on side doors that do not fit into one of these excluded categories if the doors lead directly into a compartment that contains one or more seating accommodations (see S4(a)). The standard also specifies requirements for back doors (S4.4). However, these requirements only apply to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles.

FMVSS No. 206 requires categories of side doors to meet differing requirements depending on where the door is located and how it is attached to the vehicle. The requirements for hinged side doors other than cargo doors are found in S4.1, while the requirements for cargo doors are found in S4.2. Sliding side doors are addressed by S4.3. Of these categories of side doors, only hinged side doors are required to have door locks.

Under S4.1.3, door locks, all hinged side doors covered by the standard must be equipped with a locking mechanism that can be operated from the interior of the vehicle. Additionally, S4.1.3.1, side front door locks, requires all side front doors to have a lock that prevents the door from being opened from the outside of the vehicle when the door lock is engaged.

S4.1.3.2, side rear door locks, requires side rear doors that when the locking mechanism is engaged both the outside and inside door handles or other latch release mechanisms be inoperative. However, S4.1.3.2 does not apply to trucks; it only applies to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Thus, if the vehicle in question is a truck, it does not need to meet this particular requirement.

I note that under S4.4.2, door locks, each back door system covered by the standard that is equipped with interior door handles, or that leads directly into a compartment with one or more seating accommodations must have a locking mechanism that can be operated from both the inside and the outside of the vehicle. Additionally, when the locking mechanism is engaged, both the inside and outside door handles must be inoperative. However, as noted earlier, FMVSS No. 206's requirements for back doors apply only to passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles and not to trucks.

As a final note, our records indicate that your company already has a vehicle identifier for trucks. Accordingly, there is no need to request the SAE to come up with a unique identifier for any fire trucks that you manufacture.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

ref:206

d.8/2/02

^[1] The first 3-6 characters (depending on the size of the vehicle manufacturer) of a vehicle's vehicle identification number (VIN) are assigned by the SAE and identify the vehicle manufacturer and type. For more detailed information on VINs, please refer to 49 CFR 565.

ID: aiam1714

Dear Mr. Anderson: This is in reply to your letters of October 25, and November 5, 1974 requesting our opinion on whether a tire recently approved by ASTM for special purpose highway and airport runway skid resistance tests must conform to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR S 571.109), and whether it may be used for skid resistance testing on highways and airport runways. You describe the tire as a G778-15 of bias-belted construction (2-ply polyester sidewall and 2 fiberglass belts), having a tread with no grooves or sipes. You indicate that due to the tread configuration the tire will not meet the high speed performance requirements (S4.2.2.6) of Standard No. 109.; Standard No. 109 applies according to its terms to '...tires for use o passenger cars...' We believe it reasonable to distinguish these ASTM test tires from tires subject to Standard No. 109. While physically similar to passenger car tires, these tires are manufactured purely as test devices, and for test purpose. We conclude, therefore, that they are not 'for use on passenger cars' within the meaning of Standard No. 109. These tires should be distinguished from experimental program for passenger car tires, which we have found to be subject to Standard no. 109.; Because of this conclusion, there are no NHTSA prohibitions on th tires' use as test tires. They may be used for testing purposes on public highways and airport runways if that testing can be conducted in a safe manner. You should, however, check State and local laws in any area in which you which to conduct testing to see that those laws permit testing if this type. Because the tires are not subject to Standard No. 109 we believe it would be preferable if they did not contain the nomenclature required by Standard No. 109 except insofar as that nomenclature relates to their safe use in testing. This would reduce the chance that they may be used on passenger cars for other than test purposes. We also believe a stronger warning against general use would be proper. We have in mind Something like 'CAUTION: NOT FOR GENERAL HIGHWAY USE - DO NOT USE EXCEPT FOR SPECIAL TEST PURPOSES.'; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht89-2.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/89

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: ALAN S. ELDAHR, -- OPTIMUM BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/08/88 FROM ALAN S. ELDAHR -- OPTIMUM BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES TO ERICA JONES -- NHTSA; OCC 2404

TEXT: Dear Mr. Eldahr:

This is in reply to your letter with respect to a "small LED display reader board for use in private vehicles." This device can be incorporated with the center highmounted stoplamp, or installed as a separate unit, also to be placed in the rear window. In the latter configuration, messages can be displayed continuously, or stop when the service brakes are applied. You have concluded that the device will not impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar d No. 108. You have asked for our comments. I regret the delay in responding.

Our first comment is that the device cannot be combined with an original equipment center highmounted stop lamp, or with an aftermarket center highmounted stop lamp used to replace original equipment center lamps, installed on vehicles manufactured on an d after September 1, 1985. Paragraph S5.4 of Standard No. 108 forbids combining the center stop lamp with any other lamp. We view the LED reader board as a type of signal lamp within the meaning of the prohibition.

The legality of a combined LED-center stop lamp for installation on passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 1985, is not determinable under Standard No. 108, but under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Its installation by motor vehicle manufacturers, distributors, dealers or repair businesses would be permissible under Federal law if the installation does not render inoperative in whole or in part any element of design, or device, installed in accordance with a safety standard. However, it would still remain subject to regulation by any State in which it would be sold or operated. We cannot advise you on State laws. You may wish to consult the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators for an opinion (4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Va. 22203).

As for the device's legality as a separate unit in the rear window area, when installed as an item of original equipment, it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108. If it creates a noncompliance with the field of view requirements of

Standard No. 111 Rearview Mirrors, an outside rear view mirror must be provided on the passenger's side. As an aftermarket item, it is subject to the render inoperative provisions of the Act. We believe that an additional original equipment light in th e rear window, whether red or amber, and whether or not operating simultaneously with the center lamp but sending messages unrelated to vehicle stops, could confuse and distract a driver following, and in that sense impair the effectiveness of the center lamp. For the same reason, we believe that as an aftermarket item installed on passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985, your device could render the original equipment center lamp on those cars partially inoperative by distracting att ention from its function. As for installation on vehicles that were manufactured before that date and thus lack center lamps, this again is a question to be answered under State laws. At all times, the field of view requirements of Standard No. 111 must be maintained, regardless of whether the car was manufactured before or after September 1, 1985.

Sincerely,

ID: 1983-2.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/04/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: 3M Center -- Mary Ruth Harsha, Office of General Counsel

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 7/30/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Mark T. Lerche (Sun Control Products of Virginia, Inc.); Also, 11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to M.P. McNiff (3M Company, Solar Control Products); Also, 4/18/83 letter from Frank Berndt to Charles H. Percy

TEXT:

Ms. Mary Ruth Harsha Office of General Counsel 3M Center P.O. Box 33428 St. Paul, Minnesota 55133

Dear Ms. Harsha:

This responds to your company's recent letter regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety regulations to the sale and application of sun control films on motor vehicles. You ask whether our November 10, 1976, letter to your company on this same subject is still applicable, as well as several other questions.

Our November 1976 letter is still current. Solar films themselves are not considered glazing materials under Safety Standard No. 205. As stated in that letter, however, the application of such films to motor vehicles by certain persons does give rise to responsibilities under Federal law. I am enclosing a copy of a recent letter of interpretation which discusses the pertinent Federal law on this subject.

I am also enclosing a copy of a telegram that we recently sent to the Hawaii Department of Transportation which discusses the preemptive effect of Safety Standard No. 205 over State laws governing the same aspect of motor vehicle performance, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seg.). The Hawaii legislature has passed a law which attempts to allow dealers and businesses in that State to apply solar films on motor vehicles. Those films are allowed to reduce transmittance down to 35 percent. As pointed out in the enclosed telegram, Safety Standard No. 205 preempts that State statute in certain respects. The letter of interpretation and the telegram should answer all of your questions.

Please note that under Safety Standard No. 205 all windows in a passenger car are considered requisite for driving visibility. Thus, all windows in a passenger car must have a light transmittance of at least 70 percent. In vehicles other than passenger cars, typically, only the windshield and front side windows are considered requisite for driving visibility. This means, for example, that a van could have solar films installed on windows behind the driver, since no transmittance requirements are specified for those windows.

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures (4/18/83 letter from NHTSA to Charles H. Percy omitted here:)

2/17/83

TO: PAUL J PHILLIPSON STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCH BOWL STREET, 5TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813

THIS LETTER RESPONDS TO YOUR FEBRUARY 11, 1983 LETTER REGARDING BILL CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED IN THE HAWAII LEGISLATURE.

THE BILL, S.B. NO. 57, RELATES TO LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE THROUGH VEHICLE GLAZING AND PRACTICE OF ATTACHING A "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" TO SUCH GLAZING. BILL PERMITS ADDITION OF SUN SCREENING DEVICE TO SIDE WINDOWS AND REAR WINDOWS IF LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE AND LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING AND SCREENING DEVICE TOGETHER ARE EACH NOT MORE THAN 35 PERCENT.

THIS BILL, IF ENACTED, WOULD BE AT LEAST PARTIALLY PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW AND WOULD NOT, IN ANY EVENT, ALTER PROHIBITION IN FEDERAL LAW AGAINST AFFIXING OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER MATERIALS OR DEVICES SO AS TO REDUCE LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW THAT REQUIRED IN FEDERAL SAFETY STANDARDS. SECTION 103(d) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT, AS AMENDED 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) PROHIBITS STATE FROM HAVING SAFETY STANDARD REGULATING ASPECT OF PERFORMACE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARD UNLESS STATE STANDARD IS IDENTICAL TO FEDERAL STANDARD.

GLAZING IS AN ASPECT OF PERFORMANCE SUBJECT TO FEDERAL STANDARDS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 103(a) OF THE STANDARD ACT (15 U.S.C. 1392(a)), NHTSA HAS ESTABLISHED FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 205, GLAZING MATERIALS (49 CFR 571.205). STANDARD NO. 205 REGULATES GLAZING MATERIALS IN NEW VEHICLES AS WELL AS REPLACEMENT GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED VEHICLES. STANDARD REQUIRES THAT ALL GLAZING USED IN CARS TO HAVE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF AT LEAST 70 PERCENT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT S.B. NO. 57 WOULD PERMIT ADDITION BY ANY PERSON, SUCH AS A DEALER, OF TINTING FILM OR OTHER DEVICE OR MATERIALS TO THE GLAZING IN NEW CARS OR TO THE GLAZING TO BE INSTALLED IN USED CARS SO THAT LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE IS REDUCED BELOW 70 PERCENT, THAT BILL WOULD NOT BE IDENTICAL TO STANDARD NO. 205. ACCORDINGLY, THE BILL WOULD, IN THAT REGARD, BE PREEMPTED UNDER SECTION 103(d).

FURTHER, PRACTICES PROHIBITED BY SAFETY ACT COULD NOT BE MADE LAWFUL BY S.B. NO. 57. ENACTMENT OF THAT BILL WOULD NOT ALTER PROHIBITION IN SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) OF SAFETY ACT AGAINST ALTERING VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT SO AS TO RENDER INOPERATIVE SAFETY FEATURES OR PERFORMANCE INCORPORATED IN THOSE VEHICLES OR EQUIPMENT. PROHIBITION APPLIES TO MOTOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, DEALERS AND MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESSES, BUT NOT TO PERSONS WHO ALTERS HIS OR HER OWN VEHICLE OR EQUIPMENT.

EFFECT: OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS TO PROHIBIT ANY OF LISTED PARTIES FROM INSTALLING " SUN SCREENING DEVICE" ON CAR GLAZING, IF THAT INSTALLATION WOULD REDUCE LUMINOUS TRANSMITTANCE OF GLAZING BELOW 70 PERCENT. THIS PROHIBITION APPLIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER GLAZING IS ALREADY INSTALLED ON CAR OR WHETHER CAR IS NEW OR USED. NHTSA HAS STATED IN PREVIOUS LETTER OF INTERPRETATION THAT AUTO TINT SHOPS OR ANY PERSON WHO INSTALLS SOLAR TINTING FILM ON CAR GLAZING FOR COMPENSATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT DEALER OR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUSINESS AND THUS SUBJECT TO THE PROHIBITION.

PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) CAN BE SUBSTANTIAL. SECTION 109 OF SAFETY ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THAT SECTION IS SUBJECT TD CIVIL PENALTY OF UP TO $1,000 PER VIOLATION. THUS, IF PERSON VIOLATES SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IN ALTERING 10 CARS, HE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY OF UP TO $10,000. SECTION 109 ALLOWS TOTAL PENALTY OF UP TO $800,000 FOR RELATED SERIES OF VIOLATIONS.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT NHTSA INTENDS TO TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO ENFORCE SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) PROHIBITION AGAINST IDENTIFIED PARTIES WHO ADD "SUN SCREENING DEVICES" IN VIOLATION OF THAT SECTION.

FINALLY, WE NOTE THAT IF "SUN SCREENING DEVICE" INSTALLED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 108(a)(2)(A) IS FACTOR IN CAUSING ACCIDENT, INSTALLER MAY BE SUBJECTED TO SUBSTANTIAL LIABILITY AS RESULT OF PRIVATE LAW SUITS.

Original signed by Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 30, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of Sun Control Films to Motor Vehicles

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am legal counsel to the Energy Control Products Project of 3M, a division of 3M engaged in the manufacture and sale of sun control films.

On November 10, 1976 your office wrote to Mr. M. P. McNiff of 3M Company regarding the applicability of federal motor vehicle regulations to the sale and application of sun control films. A copy of this letter is attached for your reference.

As you are aware, various state laws and the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission Regulation, VESC-20, have been enacted relative to the use of sun control films since the date of your November 10, 1976 memo to Mr. McNiff, and my office has recently reviewed various inquiries regarding the applicability of these latter regulations and the federal standards. I would therefore appreciate receiving an update to your November 10th memo and a clarification from your office relative to the following matters:

1. Is either the sale or application of sun control films to motor vehicles governed by any provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act? If so, to what degree is applicability affected by the following factors:

a) whether the film is applied by a dealer specializing in film application versus a private individual;

b) whether the vehicle is a passenger automobile versus a recreational vehicle; or

c) the location of the application, i.e. to the back windshield versus the front windshield.

2. Are VESC--20 and the various state laws which have been enacted relative to sun control films preempted by federal regulations? If so, pursuant to what statutory authority and to what degree?

Your opinion relative to the foregoing matters would be greatly appreciated. Please forward your comments to my associate Mary Ruth Harsha, Division Attorney, Office of General Counsel, 3M Center, P. 0. Box 33428, St. Paul, MN 55133.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Ms. Harsha directly on 612/736-1791.

Very truly yours,

Claudia J. Davis CJD:kmm cc: Mary Ruth Harsha

Enclosure (11/10/76 letter from Frank Berndt to Solar Control Products omitted here.)

ID: aiam2117

Dear Mr. Whitten: This is in further reply to your letter of October 3, 1975, for Mr Charles Russel of WJLJ, regarding tire failures on ambulances in Tupelo, Mississippi.; Pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No.109, 49 CFR 571.109, which specifies performance and labeling requirements for new tires for use on passenger cars. Among the labeling requirements is that such tires must have their load ratings molded into or onto both sidewalls. Standard No. 119, 40 CFR 571.119, establishes similar requirements for new tires for use on trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The choice of standard applicable to a given tire depends on that tire's primary intended use. These standards apply to tires, and not to vehicles.; To ensure that new vehicles are equipped with proper tires, the NHTS has also issued Standard No. 110 for passenger cars and a proposed new Standard No. 120 that would apply to vehicles other than passenger cars. Briefly, Standard No. 110 requires each new passenger car to be equipped with tires which meet Standard No. 109 and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity, as evidenced by the load ratings found on the sidewalls. As proposed, Standard No. 120 would require MPV's (including ambulances) to be equipped with tires which meet either Standard No. 109 or No. 119, and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity. In the case of Standard 119 tires, sufficiency of load carrying capacity would be calculated directly from the tires' load ratings. In the case of Standard 109 (passenger car) tires mounted on an MPV, sufficiency would be determined by dividing the tire load ratings by a 110 percent correction factor before comparing these ratings with the vehicle's weight ratings. The use of passenger car tires on new ambulances would thus not be prohibited by the new standard, provided this load rating correction factor is applied. This provision would recognize an established practice which has not been found to present a safety hazard. Passenger car tires generally provide a softer, more comfortable ride than truck tires, because the latter operate at higher inflation pressures, and thus may even more desirable on ambulances, provided they are of adequate load carrying capacity. The NHTSA expects to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future.; For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 109, 110 119, and the proposed Standard No. 120.; Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr.

ID: aiam2116

Dear Mr. Whitten: This is in further reply to your letter of October 3, 1975, for Mr Charles Russell of WJLJ,regarding tire failures on ambulances in Tupelo, Mississippi.; Pursuant to the national Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 the Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has issued Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, 49 CFR 571.109, which specifies performance and labeling requirements for new tires for use on passenger cars. Among the labeling requirements is that such tires must have their load ratings molded into or onto both sidewalls. Standard No. 119, 49 CFR 571.119, establishes similar requirements for new tires for use on trucks, buses, trailers, motorcycles, and multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPV's). The choice of standard applicable to a given tire depends on that tire's primary intended use. These standards apply to tires, and not to vehicles.; To ensure that new vehicles are equipped with proper tires, the NHTS has also issued Standard No. 110 for passenger cars and a proposed new Standard No. 120 that would apply to vehicles other than passenger cars. Briefly, Standard No. 110 requires each new passenger car to be equipped with tires which meet Standard No. 109 and which are sufficient load carrying capacity, as evidenced by the load ratings found on the sidewalls. As proposed, Standard No. 120 would require MPV's (including ambulances) to be equipped with tires which meet either Standard No. 109 or No. 119, and which are of sufficient load carrying capacity. In the case of Standard 119 tires, sufficiency of load carrying capacity would be calculated directly from the tires' load ratings. In the case of Standard 109 (passenger car) tires mounted on an MPV, sufficiency would be determined by dividing the tire load ratings by a 110 percent correction factor before comparing these ratings with the vehicle's weight ratings. The use of passenger car tires on new ambulances would thus not be prohibited by the new standard, provided this load rating correction factor is applied. This provision would recognize an established practice which has not been found to present a safety hazard. Passenger car tires generally provide a softer, more comfortable ride than truck tires, because the latter operate at a higher inflation pressures, and thus may even be more desirable on ambulances, provided they are of adequate load carrying capacity. The NHTSA expect to issue Standard No. 120 in the near future.; For your convenience, I am enclosing copies of Standards Nos. 109, 110 119, and the proposed Standard No. 120.; Sincerely, William T. Coleman, Jr.

ID: 86-6.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/15/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Adam Humes -- General Manager, Marquis Coachcrafters

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter to Stephen Oesch of my office concerning the effect of our regulations on the conversion of hardtop vehicles into convertibles. You explained that your company will be performing such conversions on new Cadillac Sedan De Villes and you are specifically concerned about how Standards No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, would affect such conversions. I regret the delay in our response.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer is required to certify that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. Under Part 567.7 of the agency's certification regulation, a copy of which is enclosed, a person who alters a new vehicle prior to its first sale to the consumer must certify that the vehicle, as altered, still conforms with all applicable standards. Thus, your company would have to certify that the vehicle you have altered into a convertible still complies with all applicable standards.

In the case of Standard No. 208, S4.1.2.3.2 of the standard permits convertibles to have either a lap or lap/shoulder belt at each front outboard designated seating position. Thus, when you alter a hardtop passenger car, you may remove the lap/shoulder belt and replace it with a lap belt that meets the requirements of S4.1.2.3.2.

Please note that beginning on September 1, 1986, manufacturers must begin phasing-in the installation of automatic restraint systems, such as automatic belts and airbag systems, in their vehicles. For example, S4.1.3.1 of Standard No. 208 requires manufacturers to install automatic restraints in ten percent of their passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1986, and before September 1, 1987. The agency has temporarily excluded convertibles from the automatic restraint requirement during the phase-in period. Instead of automatic restraints, convertibles may have either a manual lap or lap/shoulder belt.

Please note that the agency's final decision in the ongoing rulemaking on applying the automatic restraint requirement to convertibles may affect the conversion of hard-top cars into convertibles in subsequent years. If the agency does not exempt convertibles permanently from the automatic restraint requirement, then a person changing an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to ensure that the altered cars still complied with the automatic restraint requirement. Likewise, if the agency applied a dynamic test requirement to the manual safety belts used in convertibles, a person altering an automatic restraint equipped hardtop car into a convertible would have to either retain the automatic restraints or equip the altered vehicles with manual safety belts meeting the dynamic test requirements.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

Steve Oesch -- Office Chief Concel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Oesch:

The increasing popularity of convertibles in recent years has led to many questions on the effect of Federal auto safety laws on this practice.

Marquis Coachcrafters manufacture convertible conversions on new O.E.M. front wheel drive Cadillac Sedan De Villes. As a manufacturer of new vehicles, my question to you pretains to Standard 208 and 209, Title #49 of the U.S. Code. Standard 208 states that a seat belt must cover 95% of a persons body to meet Federal standards. But in Standard 209, paragraph 54.1.1.2 states that any automobile that is open aired or a convertible has the option of paragraph 4.1.2.3.2. This option states that Type 1 (lap belt) or Type 2 (combo lap and shoulder) conforms to Federal safety laws 208 and 209.

The information I obtained was from a Mr. Tom Grubbs. He may be reached at the following number. (202) 426-2807.

Thank you for your time, consideration and reply.

Your truly,

Adam Humes General Manager -- MARQUIS COACHCRAFTERS

ID: 3042yy

Mr. Takashi Odaira
Chief Representative
Emission & Safety
Isuzu Technical Center of America, Inc.
41050 Vincenti Court
Novi, Michigan 48375

Dear Mr. Odaira:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation on whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to the rear seat requirements set forth in the final rule on Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, published on October 30, 1990 (55 FR 45722). As noted by your letter, 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 issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment meet applicable standards. The following provides our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Your letter describes the positioning of the SID as follows:

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 orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane, or affecting the H-point.

You noted, however, that "(t)his condition . . . obviously does not meet the positioning procedure of paragraphs S7.l.3(a) and (b), which provides, 'The upper torso of the test dummy rests against the seat back.'" You stated that it is therefore your interpretation that the vehicle cannot accommodate the SID dummy and that the rear seat requirements are not applicable to it. You requested our views regarding your understanding.

In the preamble to the October 1990 final rule, NHTSA noted that, for some vehicles where the roof has a steep rear slope, the SID head can be tilted so as to accommodate the test dummy without changing the specified orientation of the thorax midsagittal plane or affecting the H-point (two of the specifications in the S7 positioning procedure). The agency also noted that there are some cars with rear seating areas that are so small that the SID dummy cannot be accommodated according to the specified positioning procedures, even if the head is adjusted fore-aft.

Section S3 of Standard No. 214 provides that the rear seat requirements do not apply to "passenger cars which have rear seating areas that are so small that the [SID] dummies cannot be accommodated according to the positioning procedure specified in S7." Thus, if any aspect of the positioning procedure, including the specification that the upper torso rests against the seat back, cannot be met, the vehicle is not required to meet the rear seat requirements of Standard No. 214.

With regard to whether the Isuzu 2-door Coupe is subject to Standard No. 214's rear seat requirements, NHTSA cannot make a determination that the rear seat requirements do not apply to a vehicle based solely on a description and photographs of that test procedure. If the agency should conduct a compliance test for the vehicle, it would attempt to position the SID dummies in the rear seat according to the specified seating procedure. If NHTSA were unable to position SID dummies in the rear of the vehicle according to the specified procedure, it would conclude that the rear seat requirements do not apply to that particular vehicle.

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

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel /ref:214 d:6/25/9l

ID: nht79-4.53

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA

TO: HERBERT L. MISCH -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY ENGINEERING STAFF, FORD MOTOR COMPANY

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This letter is in response to your letter of August 31, 1979, concerning the perceptions and realities of the safety of children in cars equipped with air bags.

On September 13, 1979, a team of senior level National Highway Traffic Safety Administration engineers and scientists visited Ford for discussions with your staff on the questions you raised in your letter. They reported to me that on the basis of their discussions, additional staff level discussions would be beneficial.

Federal regulations on automatic occupant crash protection, like all motor vehicle safety standards, are minimum requirements. Compliance with these requirements may not be sufficient to provide an adequate level of safety for all occupants under all circumstances. Manufacturers are expected to be responsible for the development, design, testing, and manufacture of safety systems in their cars that provide a level of safety that is consistent with the capability of the technology, the state of its development, and the practical constraints of motor vehicle mass production and marketing, as you indicate in your letter.

We disagree with your contention that responsibility for the protection of children, who are otherwise unrestrained and out of their normal seating position, significantly differs from the usual situation with other safety systems or other Federal requirements. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has considered at various times adding further performance criteria to the requirements of FMVSS 208. However, the Agency is very reluctant to do so unless a substantial problem is identified that can only be addressed in this way. Such additional criteria tend to restrict innovations in designs and test procedures used by the manufacturers. They can also decrease the incentive to a manufacturer to try to achieve the safest possible systems because they freeze performance requirements, and inhibit innovation.

Ford has available to it the basic information (beyond that which is proprietary to other companies) and the resources that are available to the other automobile companies or to the government. You have substantial in-house expertise, and many independent experts and contractors are available to help assess: 1) the test protocols that are appropriate to measure the performance of restraint systems in frequent, high risk, real world situations; 2) the specific performance of Ford's air bag system; and 3) whether any modifications in the Ford system are warranted.

As we announced on Monday, October 1, 1979, in a press conference concerning General Motors' decision to postpone their 1981 introduction of air bags into production, I have appointed a special team to assess the basis of GM's decision. (A copy of my statement is enclosed.) The assessment has already begun, and will proceed for at least the next several months. This team will look at accident data and the position of occupants in cars at the time of a crash to determine the frequency and risk to vehicle occupants of various circumstances involving the restraint system. They will also assess the biomechanics and biofidelity of various surrogates used for occupants, particularly children in testing. We will keep you informed of the progress of this work as it goes forward.

We must not lose sight of the fact that air bags offer a very substantial potential for improving automobile occupant safety. The opportunity to reduce fatalities and serious injuries in frontal crashes to less than one half their present levels provides strong justification to commercialize these automatic restraints at the earliest practical date, provided due care has been exercised in the development and testing of systems for the variety of situations in which they will be needed.

I hope that these comments, and any assistance that our staff can provide, will be useful in resolving the questions you have about your air bag system. We also hope to see Ford as the first company to resume air bag production in the 1981 model year.