ID: nht80-1.50

DATE: 04/14/80

FROM: Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity of the rear seat in a 1981-model passenger car you plan to market. You state that the seat cushion and seat back of this rear seat are contoured to clearly indicate occupancy by only two persons, and that the seat has only 41.1 inches of hip room.

If the rear seat has only 41.1 inches of hip room, the agency must conclude that the seat could qualify as having only two seating positions, since this is substantially below the 50-inch caveat in the amended definition of "designated seating position." However, it appears from the photographs and diagrams enclosed in your letter that this rear seat effectively has almost 50 inches of hip room, if measured mid-way between the front and back of the seat cushion (49.2 inches according to the diagram). It is only by the strict measurement technique of SAE J1100a and the contour of the seat back that you obtain the 41.1-inch figure. Further, there appears to be 10 to 12 inches of well-padded seat cushion at the center position of the seat between the inboard ends of the two seat belt assemblies. This position could obviously be used by a vehicle occupant. Therefore, we strongly urge you to designate three seating positions in this vehicle design or to install a fixed armrest or some other obstruction so that the center position cannot be used. I am enclosing two recent letters of interpretation on this same subject which are pertinent to your inquiry and which emphasize the agency's positon concerning designs such as you describe in your letter.

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

ID: nht78-2.27

DATE: 08/16/78

FROM: A. MALLIARIS FOR M. M. FINKELSTEIN -- NHTSA

TO: Department of Radiology and Nuclear Radiology

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 21, 1978, regarding the height of head restraints in U.S. manufactured cars.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 202, Head Restraints, Passenger Cars, copy enclosed, requires that when the head restraint is adjusted to its fully extended design position, the top of the head restraint shall not be less than 27.5 inches above the seating reference point. The 27.5 inches approximates the distance from the hip point to the occiput of a 95% percentile anthropometric male figure. The seating reference point in turn corresponds to the hip point. Therefore, head restraints would be expected to be adjustable to the normal sitting height of 95 percent of the male population.

On March 10, 1978, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a notice of a draft plan for rulemaking, copy enclosed. Plans for rulemaking concerning head restraints are noted on page 11106 under Docket 74-13. To support future rulemaking regading the height of head restraints we would appreciate any data that you may have in your possession regarding cervical spine injuries in rear impact accidents. It may be forwarded to NHTSA, Docket 74-13.

A copy of your letter is being forwarded to the docket as a matter for the public record.

SINCERELY,

Orlando General Hospital

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Safety Administration Office of the Rule Making

July 21, 1978

Dear Sir:

It is my opinion that the headrest on U.S. manufactured cars are designed to prevent injury to the cervical spine and the skull. Through personal experience and experience as a Radiologist, I find that the maximum height of these headrests are not high enough to prevent injury to taller people.

I strongly encourage that the headrests installed in U.S. manufactured automobiles be adjustable by the occupant so that people over 6 foot 2 inches tall may have the benefit of safety. At the present time, the maximum height sometimes encourages more traumatic injuries of the cervical spine rather than preventing them in regards toward tall people.

Bodo E. Pyko, D.O. Chairman Department of Radiology and Nuclear Radiology

ID: nht78-3.2

DATE: 01/25/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 14, 1977, inquiring whether attaching mirrors onto the backs of sun visors on the passenger's side would violate S3.4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact -- Passenger Cars.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has determined that paragraph S3.4.1 of Standard No. 201 does not prohibit the installation by manufacturers of vanity mirrors on sun visors. Consequently, so long as the mirror does not cause the visor to be hazardous or to interfere with the energy-absorbing requirement of S3.4.1, manufacturers are free to incorporate such mirrors into or onto sun visors, including fitting mirrors onto the backs of the sun visors on the passenger's side as in the diagram you enclosed.

SINCERELY,

Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

December 14, 1977

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Levin:

We are considering to attach a mirror to the sun visor for customers' convenience. However, since MVSS 201 provides for the following requirement, we would like to have your comment as to whether we can meet it by doing so.

MVSS 201 "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact"

S3.4 Sun visor

S3.4.1 Two sun visor shall be provided that are constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material.

The mirror will be fitted into the back of the sun visor on passenger's side as shown in the attached sheet. We consider that this would be in compliance with the above requirement on the grounds that the sun visor made of energy-absorbing material would not contact the occupant under normal condition, thus would not produce an adverse effect on the safety of the occupant.

We would appreciate hearing from you on this matter as soon as possible.

Moriyuki Watanabe Director and Assistant General Manager Research and Development

CC: TOYO KOGYO USA REP. OFC., DETROIT BRANCH

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-1.8

DATE: 12/05/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. Birch

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-3O

Mr. R. Birch Chief Constable P.O. Box 4 Leek Wootton Warwick, England CV35 8QB

Dear Mr. Birch:

This responds to your recent letter concerning a reflective film that is being applied to the windows of some vehicles in the United Kingdom. You ask whether regulations preventing the use of such film have been introduced in the United States.

At the current time, there are no Federal regulations that prohibit the use of reflective films such as you describe. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. We have no authority, however, to regulate the use of motor vehicles, such as an owner applying reflective film to his car. Further, we have issued interpretations stating that reflective coated polyester films do not qualify as glazing materials and, therefore, do not come within the purview of our Safety Standard No. 205. This interpretation referred only to polyester film sold by itself. Glazing materials that have coated films that were applied by the glazing manufacturer are required to comply with the standard, including the light transmittance requirements.

The agency did receive a petition for rulemaking last year from the California Highway Patrol asking that reflective glazing materials be prohibited (glazing coated with reflective substances by the glazing manufacturer). While use of the reflective coating could reduce the ability of a driver to look through the glazing of vehicles in front of him or her and she the road and vehicles ahead, we denied the petition since we lacked data indicating that there is a safety problem created by the coating. If you have or know of any data indicating a safety problem, we would very much appreciate seeing the data. From a law enforcement viewpoint, the problem posed by the reflective coating is apparently more than theoretical, since officers cannot see inside a vehicle with coated glazing to the extent they deem necessary.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-3.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/27/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Fruehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Assistant General Counsel Fruehauf Corporation, Law Department 10900 Harper Avenue P.O. Box 238 Detroit, MI 18232

Dear Mr. Bourbeau:

This letter responds to your earlier inquiry where you ask whether NHTSA would object to your Company's changing "its model year designation from September 1 to July 1." I apologize for the delay in responding.

Standard 115, Vehicle Identification Number- Basic Requirements, directs vehicle manufacturers to place a discrete identifying number (VIN) on each vehicle. Title 49 CFR Part 565, VIN- Content Requirements, states that a VIN must include a character indi cating the manufacturer's designated model year. Neither Standard 115 nor Part 565 prohibits your company from changing the model year in the manner you-suggest. Therefore, such a change does not violate our-regulations.

We note that this change apparently concerns model year as a marketing concept. The Federal Trade Commission has published guidelines concerning model year as a commercial concept, and you may wish to contact the Commission for whatever assistance it may provide. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel NHTSA 400 7th Street, Room 5219 Washington, DC 20590 ATTEN:Ms. Joan Tillman

Dear Ms. Jones & Ms. Tillman:

As indicated in my telephone conversation with Joan Tillman on April 29, 1987, Fruehauf Corporation desires to change its model year designation from September 1 to July 1.

This change means that a trailer manufactured by Fruehauf on or after July 1, 1987 would be considered a 1988 model trailer. Thereafter, each successive model year would begin July 1.

This proposed change would in no way effect the Fruehauf Vehicle Identification Numbering scheme currently used and on file with your office.

Would you please respond, by way of a letter, indicating that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has no objection to this change.

Your prompt reply would greatly be appreciated.

Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.

Very truly yours,

Lawrence C. Bourbeau,Jr. Assistant General Counsel

ID: nht92-1.21

DATE: 12/16/92

FROM: DALE E. DAWKINS -- DIRECTOR, VEHICLE COMPLIANCE AND SAFETY AFFAIRS, CHRYSLER CORPORATION

TO: MARION C. BLAKEY -- ADMINISTRATOR, NHTSA

TITLE: PETITION FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTION: LOW EMISSION MOTOR VEHICLE - DATED DECEMBER 4, 1991; GRANT OF PETITION FOR TEMPORARY EXEMPTION FROM THREE FEDERAL MOTOR SAFETY STANDARDS (DOCKET NO. 91-66; NOTICE 2) - DATED JUNE 19, 1992

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-18-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO DALE E. DAWKINS (A40; PART 555)

TEXT: Chrysler Corporation desires to inform the NHTSA that we will manufacture 10 Chesapeake Consortium Electric Vehicles (CCEV's) that will fall under the temporary exemption that the agency has granted for the TEVan, an electrically powered version of the Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager multipurpose passenger vehicle. The exemptions for these CCEV's are to be coterminous with that granted the TEVan vehicle. This consortium is a joint cooperative effort by Chrysler Corporation, Westinghouse Corporation, the State of Maryland, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Power to develop electrically powered low-emission passenger vehicles under contract to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

These CCEV vehicles will be almost identical to the TEVans except for the propulsion system which will utilize an AC electrical motor, whereas the TEVans will be powered by a DC electrical motor. The CCEV with its AC motor will utilize a unique speed reduction direct drive transaxle, whereas the TEVan with its DC motor will utilize a speed reduction 2-speed transaxle. All compliance and product aspects of the vehicle program remain unchanged per our petition to the Agency on December 4, 1991 and later modified via a docket file submission on March 5, 1992. Based on our engineering judgement, there is no significant difference between the CCEV or TEVan in terms of overall vehicle safety.

We seek no broader temporary exemptions from FMVSS for the development of low emission vehicles than those already granted for the TEVan. The combined volumes of the CCEV and TEVan vehicles will not exceed the maximum units of the petition that was granted by the NHTSA.

The above information allows the NHTSA to clearly understand the content of our electric vehicle development programs and the extent of the exemptions under which these vehicles will be manufactured.

If you have any questions concerning this information, please contact Mr. Len Blazic of my staff at (313) 956-5365.

ID: nht92-1.45

DATE: 12/02/92

FROM: FRANK E. TIMMONS -- ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, TIRE DIVISION, RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-11-93 FROM JOHN WOMACK TO FRANK E. TIMMONS (A40; STD. 109; STD. 119; PART 574); ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER (DATE ILLEGIBLE) FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY.

TEXT: Your November 13, 1992 letter to the Under Secretary, Ministry of Commerce Kuwait has just been brought to my attention (see attached). There are two statements in your letter that are incorrect. If the Kuwait government does not realize this, it is possible that US tire manufacturers could be adversely affected.

In your third paragraph, starting on line 3, you state" . . .all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119)." This is not true. Only those tires designed and offered for sale for use on highway vehicles, other than passenger cars, must be certified as being in compliance with FMVSS 119.

The other misstatement in your letter is in your response to their question No. 1. "Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the 'DOT' mark?". Your answer - "Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles." is not correct. Only those tires intended for use on highway vehicles must be labeled with the DOT mark. NHTSA has stated in the past on more than one occasion that the DOT may not be labeled on tires that do not have an applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

It is requested that NHTSA send a follow-up letter to Kuwait clarifying that your response applied only to motor vehicles and their tires that are designed primarily for use on the highway.

As mentioned to Walter Myers of your staff yesterday, I will ask Mr. Ed Wunder to discuss this with his contacts in Kuwait. Mr. Wunder is stationed in Saudi Arabia and is supported jointly by industry and the Department of Commerce (NIST) to help US manufacturers sell their products in the Gulf countries.

ID: nht76-5.24

DATE: 03/08/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Steam Power Systems

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of January 22, 1976, requesting confirmation that your company's Paratransit Vehicle would be classified as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle" for purposes of the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and regulations.

Your letter states that the Paratransit Vehicle is designed primarily to carry wheel-chair-confined passengers in a Dial-a-Ride or jitney type of service, and that the vehicle is of the forward control configuration, constructed with a custom chassis-body structure.

Based upon the facts presented in your letter, the description and specifications contained in the attached SAE design paper, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's previous interpretation of the classification, we would conclude that the Paratransit Vehicle does qualify as a "multipurpose passenger vehicle."

Please contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Steam Power Systems

January 22, 1976

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

Dear Sir:

Steam Power Systems, Inc. (SPS) is currently constructing a prototype Paratransit Vehicle (PTV) for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the D.O.T. The PTV is designed primarily to carry wheelchair confined passengers in a Dial-a-Ride or jitney type of service. The SPS prototype vehicle is of the forward control configuration and is constructed with a custom chassis-body structure. The vehicle design is discussed in some detail in the accompanying SAE paper.

SPS plans to certify that the vehicle meets all applicable FMVSS for a Multipurpose Passenger Vehicle (MPV). SPS has been in touch with Mr. Joseph O'Gorman of the Office of Standards Enforcement of NHTSA, and he feels our vehicle should be classified as a MPV, but he suggested that we request an interpretation from the Office of Chief Council that would classify the paratransit vehicle as a multipurpose vehicle.

SPS would appreciate it if you could review the vehicle design and intent and let us know whether the PTV is legally considered to be an MPV. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Phil Schneider -- PTV Project Supervisor

[Enclosure Omitted.]

ID: nht78-1.26

DATE: 03/02/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: H. A. Bullock

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your December 29, 1977, letter asking whether Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems, applies to a cruise control device that you manufacture.

In Docket 69-20; Notice 3, to which you refer in your letter, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration stated that Standard No. 124 contains no requirements for cruise controls. Therefore, the standard does not apply to them. There are no other safety standards applicable to these devices.

SINCERELY,

Dec. 29, 1977

Administration Office of the Chief Council NHTSA

Gentlemen:

I have developed a mechanical automobile cruise control which I am considering marketing as an add-on product. The attached Installation and Operating Instructions and the color photos, give you a description of the cruise control and its operation.

I have been in contact with the NHTSA office in Ft. Worth, Texas and have received a copy of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 124,Accelerator Control Systems (Docket No. 69-20, Notice 3). After a review of this standard and a discussion with Mr. Robert Weltzer of that office, I was not able to obtain a determination as to whether or not this standard is applicable to my add-on cruise control. Mr. Weltzer instead suggested that I forward all the information to your office for a ruling.

I have test driven the cruise control system on my own car (Honda Accord) on several cross country trips, one of 1100 miles from Texas to Florida, and have found it works exceedingly well and presented no safety complications or compromises. As a matter of fact, my experience is that I can probably disengage my cruise control somewhat quicker than I can the electronic factory installed cruise control on my Monte Carlo because of the proximity of the cruise control knob to the driver's right hand. An added feature is that any malfunction in the operation of my mechanical cruise control device causes it not to be engaged rather than the contrary.

After reviewing the information I have provided, please advise me as to whether Standard No.124 or any other standard is applicable to my device.

Harold A. Bullock [Attachment Omitted]

ID: nht76-4.14

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: White Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to White Motor Corporation's April 26, 1976, question whether S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, require minimum brake chamber air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi, respectively, or whether these air pressures are included in the sections only as "bench marks" on which to base specifications for minimum actuation and release timing in brake systems. Section S5.3.3 specifies in part:

. . . With an initial service reservoir system air pressure of 100 psi, the air pressure in each brake chamber shall, when measured from the first movement of the service brake control, reach 60 psi in not more than 0.45 seconds. . . .

Your understanding that S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 only specify the air pressures of 60 psi and 95 psi as the basis for timing requirements is correct. Neither value is intended as a requirement that the vehicle be designed to provide a certain level of brake chamber air pressure. The values were based on an understanding of the typical configuration of existing air brake systems at the time the final rule was issued.

In response to your request for interpretation of these sections in view of White's intent to use a lower air pressure than was commonly used in the past, the agency will utilize the stated 60-psi value or a value that is 70 percent of the maximum air pressure (measured by the NHTSA at the brake chamber), whichever is lower. In the case of release, the stated 95-psi value or the value that represents maximum air pressure (measured by the NHTSA at the brake chamber), whichever is lower, will be used. For purposes of this determination, the maximum air pressure in the brake chamber is that obtainable with full brake application when the pressure in the service reservoir is at 100 psi. Use of the maximum air pressure application timing would be unreasonable because of the decreased rate of air pressure build-up that occurs as the brake chambers reach maximum pressure.

The agency will issue an interpretive amendment to S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 to reflect this interpretation.