ID: nht94-2.20

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 7, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Ulrich Metz -- Automotive Division, Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/9/93 from Ulrich Metz to NHTSA (OCC 9194)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshield. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, W indshield Wiping and Washing systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 10 4. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A," "B," and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must als o be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe p attern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels THROUGH A CYCLE) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement du ring system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme AND RETURN" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the

requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met.

As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at l east 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of en gine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system.

Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpo se passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, howeve r, apply only to passenger cars.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9194

Mr. Ulrich Metz
Automotive Division
Robert Bosch GmbH
K4/ERW3
Postfach 1163
77813 Buel
Germany

Dear Mr. Metz:

This responds to your letter to this agency regarding a new windshield wiper system you intend to develop for front windshields. I apologize for the delay in responding.

The drawing you enclosed with your letter shows a wiper system consisting of one wiper arm and blade, as distinguished from the conventional systems consisting of two wiper arms and blades. Your wiper system takes different paths on the forward and the return strokes of the wiper cycle. Thus, as you stated in your letter, "the vision areas are fulfilled only in the sum of forward and return movement." You asked whether that is permissible under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (copy enclosed), and if so, whether the minimum frequencies specified by FMVSS 104 apply to this wiper system. As explained below, the answer to both questions is yes.

The essential feature of a windshield wiper system, from a safety standpoint, is its ability to clear a specific portion of the windshield. The number of wipers necessary to provide the driver with a sufficient field of view is not specified in FMVSS 104. Therefore, the number of wipers is immaterial so long as the minimum percentages of critical areas are cleared.

The areas to be wiped are specified in paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1 of the standard. S4.1.2 establishes three windshield areas for passenger car windshields, designated as areas "A", "B", and "C." Each area is required to have a certain percentage of the glazing area wiped as shown in Figures 1 and 2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966 (copy enclosed), using the angles specified in Tables I, II, III, and IV of FMVSS 104, as applicable. Those tables apply to passenger cars of varying overall widths, namely, from less than 60 inches to more than 68 inches. The angles set forth in the tables vary according to the overall width of the vehicle. Finally, paragraph S4.1.2 provides that the percentage of each area required to be cleared must also be within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the glazing surface one inch from the edge of the daylight opening.

With that background in mind, I will address your first question. FMVSS 104 does not specify whether the wiper needs to clear a windshield on either or both strokes. SAE Recommended Practice J903a, at paragraph 2.5, however, defines an effective wipe pattern as "that portion of the windshield glazing surface which is cleaned when the wiper blade travels through a cycle) (emphasis added). A "cycle" is defined in paragraph 2.14 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a as consisting of "wiper blade movement during system operation from one extreme of the windshield wipe pattern to the other extreme and return" (emphasis added). It is NHTSA's opinion, therefore, that so long as the required windshield area is cleared by your wiper in a complete cycle, the requirements of paragraphs S4.1.2 and S4.1.2.1, FMVSS 104, have been met.

As indicated above, your wiper system must comply with the minimum frequencies specified in section S4.1.1, Frequency, of FMVSS 104. That section requires that each windshield wiping system must have at least two frequencies or speeds. One must be at least 45 cycles per minute (cpm), regardless of engine load and speed. The other must be at least 20 cpm, also regardless of engine load and speed. In addition, the difference between the higher and lower speeds must be at least 15 cpm, regardless of engine load and speed. There are no exceptions to these frequency requirements, regardless of the number or design of the wiper arms comprising the system.

Your letter did not indicate whether your wiper system is designed to be used on passenger cars or motor vehicles other than passenger cars, or both. Please note that section S2 of FMVSS 104, Application, provides that the standard applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses in addition to passenger cars. All those vehicles are required to have power-driven windshield wiping systems that meet the frequency requirements of section S4.1.1. The wiped area requirements of S4.1.2, however, apply only to passenger cars.

I hope this information will be helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:104 d:4/7/94

ID: 1982-1.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/20/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Hon. Phil Sharp - H.O.R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting information on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher. Mr. Lecher is under the impression that there is some new law "banning cars with dark-tinted windows." He is particularly concerned that he will have to replace the windows on his Datson pickup.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. There is a safety standard which specifies performance and location requirements for glazing materials used on motor vehicles (Standard No. 205). However, the requirements of this standard as they relate to tinting have not changed in years. The standard currently requires the windshield and front side windows in cars and trucks (i.e., windows necessary for driving visibility) to have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. Other windows may be tinted as darkly as the manufacturer wishes. If the windows in Mr. Lecher's pickup were factory-installed, they are presumably in compliance with Standard No. 205. Therefore, Mr. Lecher should not worry about having to alter his windows. There is no new Federal law or regulation, nor any proposed rule, to change the requirements of Standard No. 205 in this regard.

Mr. Lecher might be referring to a State law or regulation. We understand that some states are considering prohibitions against the use of dark tinting films which can be applied to existing vehicle windows. Such State laws would not require Mr. Lecher to alter the windows on his pickup, however, if the windows are the original glazing installed by the manufacturer in compliance with the Federal standard. This is because Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (15 U.S.C. 1392, et seq.) pre-empts any State law which is applicable to the same aspect of performance as a Federal safety standard.

Standard No. 205 would pre-empt any State law which attempted to specify the amount of tinting that a piece of new motor vehicle glazing could have. Standard No. 205 would not pre-empt a State law which prohibits the applications of films or decals on existing glazing, however, since Standard 205 does not apply to the use of glazing after it has been purchased by a consumer. I suggest that Mr. Lecher contact his State Department of Motor Vehicles to find out about any activity in this area.

I am enclosing a copy of the Vehicle Safety Act for Mr. Lecher's information.

Sincerely,

2 Enclosures; Constituent's Correspondence; Vehicle Safety Act

ATTACH.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

December 7, 1981

Joe LaSalla -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Lafalla:

I was recently contacted by a constituent, Mr. Mark Lecher, who is concerned about a ban on the use of tinted glass in trucks.

I am enclosing a copy of the letter that I received from Mr. Lecher. I would appreciate an explanation of any action your agency has taken or information of which you are aware in any other agency which would result in the banning of the use of tinted glass.

Your assistance in complying with this request will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Phil Sharp -- Member of Congress

Enclosure

NOVEMBER 22, 1981

Dear Congressman Shop,

My name is Mark Lecher, originally from Fort Wayne, Indiana.

Now I'm living in the Bargersville area, South of Indianapolis. I work as a Cabinet maker, earning $ 5.00 per hour.

I don't feel the Social-Security problem will have much hope of helping me, by my time of retirement. I'm 28 years old now. All a person hears about is how the government is running out of money.

This company I work for has no retirement pension plan. So, if Social Security runs out, I'll only wonder, where did all that money go that I put into it for my own future.

There are alot of people who feel that way.

But it seems helpless to worry about.

Also in this letter, mainly why I wrote, is about this new law banning cars with dark - tinted windows. (Excluding windshields)

Last year I bought a new Datson pickup truck, great gas mileage.

When I bought it it had dark-tinted side windows, and back window. Now I hear they're going to (Illegible Word) the dark-tint. If I have to remove this tint it will ruin my window. The substance is not made to come off. And there is no way I could afford to buy new clean windows.

So if you can, please, stop that Bill! and good luci- with the Social Security System.

Sincerely, Mark E. Lecher

ID: nht93-6.49

DATE: September 29, 1993

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: William C. Longo -- Chief Executive Officer, Ram Off Road Accessories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/7/93 from Willaim (William) C. Longo to Office of the Chief Consel (OCC 8746)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning possible liability involved with marketing a product you manufacture, particularly with respect to installation of the product on vehicles equipped with Supplemental Restraint Systems (SRS), also known as air bags. I regret the delay in responding to your letter. In a June 16, 1993 phone conversation with Mary Versailles of my staff, Troy Wood explained that the products are aftermarket decorative sheet metal accessories that attached to the exterior of vehicles. Your company also makes replacement bumpers for vehicles. As Ms. Versailles explained on the phone, this letter will discuss Federal laws which might be affected by the addition of your products on vehicles equipped with air bags. Potential liability questions should be addressed to a private attorney who is familiar with tort law.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. S1381 et seq.; Safety Act) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 108 (a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

NHTSA has exercised its authority to establish Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208). Among other things, Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection. "Automatic crash protection" means that a vehicle is equipped with occupant restraints that require no action by vehicle occupants. The performance of automatic crash protection is dynamically tested, that is, the automatic systems are required to comply with certain injury reduction criteria as measured by test dummies in a barrier crash test at speeds up to 30 mph. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered on new passenger cars are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are-not used). A new Federal statutory requirement will make air bags mandatory in all cars and light trucks by the late 1990's.

Standard No. 208 applies to new vehicles; therefore, if your products are installed before the vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale, the vehicle would have to be certified as complying with all applicable standards, including Standard No. 208, with your product installed. However,

as explained in the phone conversation with Ms. Versailles of my staff, we understand your products are intended as items of after-market equipment.

After a vehicle's first purchase for purposes other than resale; i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle, a provision in Federal law that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable safety standard is set forth in section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). That section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle ... in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Any violation of this "render inoperative" prohibition would subject the violator to a potential civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. The "render inoperative" provision would prohibit a commercial business from installing your product on a vehicle equipped with an air bag in a manner that would negatively affect the vehicle's compliance with Standard No. 208 or any other safety standard. For example, the installer would have to be careful not to activate a sensor while attaching your product, causing the air bag to deploy.

Please note that the "render inoperative" prohibition would apply to a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installing your product, and not to your company as the manufacturer of the product. Also note that the "render inoperative" prohibition does not apply to modifications vehicle owners make to their own vehicles. Thus, Federal law would not apply in situations where individual vehicle owners install your product on their own vehicles, even if the installation were to result in the vehicle no longer complying with the safety standards. However, individual states have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their own vehicles.

I have enclosed an information sheet that identifies relevant Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers, and explains how to obtain copies of these materials.

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

ID: aiam2054

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, in which you aske whether the uniform tire quality grading requirements for furnishing information to prospective purchasers of vehicles apply to prospective purchasers of vehicles other than passenger cars that may be equipped with passenger car tires. This was asked in light of the fact that the tire quality grading rule itself applies to tires manufactured for use on passenger cars.; We do not consider that the requirements of S 575.6(a) and (c) regarding the furnishing of consumer information to motor vehicle buyers and prospective purchasers, apply to the sale of trucks or other non-passenger- car vehicles where uniform tire quality grading information is concerned.; We recognize that the language of the regulation may not be entirel clear in this regard, and are considering an interpretive amendment to clarify it.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam2053

Dear Mr. Nakajima: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, in which you aske whether the uniform tire quality grading requirements for furnishing information to prospective purchasers of vehicles apply to prospective purchasers of vehicles other than passenger cars that may be equipped with passenger car tires. This was asked in light of the fact that the tire quality grading rule itself applies to tires manufactured for use on passenger cars.; We do not consider that the requirements of S 575.6(a) and (c) regarding the furnishing of consumer information to motor vehicle buyers and prospective purchasers, apply to the sale of trucks or other non-passenger- car vehicles where uniform tire quality grading information is concerned.; We recognize that the language of the regulation may not be entirel clear in this regard, and are considering an interpretive amendment to clarify it.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam3276

Dear Mr. Krall: This is in response to your letter of April 3, 1980, requestin confirmation of the applicability ofS4.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 (49 CFR 571.115) solely to light trucks and passenger cars.; Although Standard No. 115 applies to a variety of vehicle types including multipurpose passenger vehicles, the location requirements in S4.4 regarding the placement of the vehicle identification number is of more limited applicability. The section expressly provides that the requirement applies to passenger cars and to trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less only. Since Standard No. 115 does not contain any other VIN location requirement, manufacturers of multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, trailers, incomplete vehicles, and heavy trucks are not limited by that standard in their choice of a VIN location. For definitions of these vehicle types, see 49 CFR 571.3.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: 15121.wkm

Mr. Robert O. Martin
Division Vice President
Corporate Quality Assurance Division
Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
50 Century Boulevard
Nashville, TN 37214

Dear Mr. Martin:

Please pardon the delay in responding to your letter addressed to Walter Myers of my staff, in which you asked whether you may install light truck (LT) metric tires that comply with Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, and No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, on a "Presidential Limo" that you describe as "basically a modified passenger vehicle." The installation of LT tires would not be permitted on a passenger car under the provisions of FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims.

NHTSA defines a "passenger car" as "a motor vehicle. . ., except a multipurpose passenger vehicle, motorcycle, or trailer, designed for carrying 10 persons or less." A "multipurpose passenger vehicle" (MPV) is one designed to carry 10 persons or less but which "is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation." Finally, a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry more than 10 persons is classified as a bus.

You did not specify the original vehicle that you modified to create the presidential limo, other than to call it a modified passenger vehicle, nor did you describe the modifications you made to it. All the vehicles described in the previous paragraph are passenger vehicles, but each has different functions, classifications, and requirements. Thus, the classification of the basic vehicle determines which set of tire requirements apply to it.

If you "stretched" a passenger car, for example, or if you modified a passenger car other than by stretching it, the issue then becomes whether the vehicle as modified is still a passenger car or whether it should be recertified as a different type of vehicle. If it still carries 10 persons or less or if it has not become an MPV, it retains its classification as a passenger car. Paragraph S4.1 of FMVSS No. 110 states that passengers cars must be equipped with tires that meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. Installation of tires certified as complying with FMVSS No. 119 is not permitted on passenger cars because of the high speed performance test required of passenger car tires but not of LT tires. Specifically, paragraph S4.2.2.6 of FMVSS No. 109 requires that passenger car tires be subjected to a high speed test, while paragraph S6.3 of FMVSS No. 119 applies the high speed test only to motorcycle tires and "non-speed-restricted tires of 14.5-in nominal rim diameter or less marked load range A, B, C, or D." We can assume that a stretched limo, in at least a few situations, may be driven at high speeds. If, on the other hand, the original vehicle was certified as an MPV, truck, or bus, FMVSS No. 120 specifies that tires that comply with either FMVSS Nos. 109 or 119 may be installed on it, provided that if passenger car tires under FMVSS No. 109 are installed on it, they would be subject to the 10 percent load rating correction factor specified in paragraph S5.1.2 of FMVSS No. 120.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or require any further information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:109#110#119#120
d.10/1/97

ID: nht88-3.37

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 1988

FROM: CLARENCE M. DITLOW -- EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY

TO: ERIKA JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-01-88 TO CLARENCE M. DITLOW, CENTER FOR AUTO SAFETY, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, NHTSA.

TEXT: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from Joanne P. Dell'Aquilla of Dover DE who reports that GM has issued a bulletin that shoulder harnesses do not enhance the safety of rear seat passengers. The dealer further stated that shoulder harnesses are un available for her 1988 Buick Regal. The dealer was apparently referring to the enclosed GM Parts Bulletin IB No. 88-68.

This report is so disturbing that we ask you to investigate it. First, all cars made since 1972 have anchors for shoulder belts so installing such belts is feasible. In response to the Center's concern about installing shoulder harnesses in older cars, NHTSA Administrator Steed wrote us on April 28, 1987:

General Motors is already offering such kits to the public through its dealers. . . . NHTSA has encouraged manufacturers to offer well designed retrofit kits for those consumers who desire them, and we will continue our efforts in that regard.

Second, the Center is not aware of any research that finds as GM states:

GM safety engineers have concluded that in these cars, a rear seat lap/shoulder belt combination would not enhance the safety offered to rear seat occupants by the lap belt alone.

As the Chief Counsel, you are well aware that the purpose of the rear shoulder belt anchorage standard is to enable consumers to install shoulder belts in the rear seats of their vehicles. As Administrator Steed states, the agency is committed to encour aging retrofits shoulder belts. GM's refusal to provide shoulder belt kits for selected models is effectively frustrating the purpose of the standard and the Administrator's policy.

A response indicating the action taken on this issue is requested.

Date:8/2/88 From:Joanne P. Dell'Aquila To: Center for Auto Safety

On Friday July 22, 1988, 20/20 News Magazine broadcasted a program about seat belts/shoulder harnesses in rear seats of American autos. It was suggested by the program that cars are already set up to receive the rear harnesses (and have been since the 7 0's) and that owners should demand they be installed. Today I called the dealer where I purchased by 1988 Buick Regal and requested they be installed. I was advised that GM, in response to the broadcast, had issued a bulletin which states that GM's Eng ineering Department does not feel harnesses in the rear seats enhance the safety for the passengers seated there. It was further stated that the harnesses are unavailable.

I am writing to determine if GM does in fact have to provide the rear harnesses if requested. Do I have protection from a consumer agency if they do not. If they do install the harnesses as requested, are they considered optional equipment at my expens e? I am sure you have been inundated with inquiries about the program and the problem, but I hope you will be able to response to my letter.

The dealer mentioned above is Kent County Motors, 2181 S. duPont Highway, Dover De 19901. The service manager is Wayne Atkins.

ID: nht71-2.39

DATE: 05/04/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1971, regarding the March 10, 1971, amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

The following are answers to your questions:

1. Question:

Standard to be effective as of August 15, 1973, through August 14, 1975, second option (S4.1.2.2) --- How many dummies should be used for frontal crash? Is the use of dummies necessary for roar and front seats or for front seat only?

Answer:

S4.1.2.2 (b) and (c) specify that the frontal barrier crash requirements of S5.1 shall be met for each front designated seating position. Thus, a dummy must be placed in each front designated seating position for these tests.

2. Question:

Same standard (S4.1.2) --- For a two seater car, what options for passive seat belts for both occupants should be taken? (First or Second option or one of these)

Answer:

A passive belt system may be used to meet the requirements of either the first or the second option under S4.1.2. If the passive belt system is intended to get the second option, however, it must employ a Type 1 seat belt assembly either as a part of the passive belt or as a separate component. This Type 1 belt must be separately usable, and must in addition meet the requirements of S7.1 and S7.2 and have a seat belt warning system.

The risk that the presence of a latch in the system may cause occupants to leave the belt unfastened while the vehicle is in motion is of concern to the NHTSA. At the same time, it is evident that some method of release is necessary for passive belt systems as well as for other passive restraints. We are therefore considering additional rulemaking on the subject of passive belts.

3. Question:

In regard to the Volkswagen Mini bus, which is the category of this automobile? (Multipurpose Passenger or Passenger)

Answer: It in a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

4. Question:

I understand that the convertible type automobile has partial exemption before August 15, 1973. What exception would be taken after that date? Also, through rumor, I have heard that this automobile will be included in the Multipurpose Passenger Car category. Is the correct?

Answer:

Because the multipurpose passenger vehicle may be manufactured in convertible form, the standard refers to convertibles under the multipurpose passenger vehicle requirements. A clear distinction is intended between such convertible multipurpose passenger vehicles, which are regulated by S4.2, and convertible passenger cars, which are regulated by S4.1. There is no plan to treat a convertible passenger car as a multipurpose passenger vehicle.

Convertible passenger cars are not distinguished from other passenger cars other than to exempt them from shoulder belt requirements in the January 1, 1972, to August 14, 1973, time period. They must thereafter meet the passive system requirements applicable to passenger cars, with no special exceptions.(Illegible Word) the multipurpose passenger vehicle category, convertibles are given the option of meeting lesser passive requirements than other multipurpose passenger vehicles (S4.2.2 and S4.2.3).

Please advise us if further clarification is needed.