ID: nht79-2.46

DATE: 01/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Stanley Electric Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 14, 1978, to Mr. E. T. Driver, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. Your letter depicted the use of two headlamps, both round and rectangular, mounted side by side, and also one above the other.

Table IV of FMVSS No. 108 requires that if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle they must be symmetrically disposed about the vertical centerline. The same requirement applies to taillamps, stoplamps, and reflex reflectors. This has been interpreted previously, in the case of reflex reflectors, to mean that if two are used they may be mounted only side by side. Four headlamp systems are not permitted on motorcycles. These are specified in the new paragraph S4.1.1.34 in the amendment published in the Federal Register July 27, 1978. A copy of the new amendment is enclosed, along with copies of previous notices that constitute FMVSS No. 108. However, if two headlamps are mounted on a motorcycle, they still must be mounted side by side and equidistant from a vertical centerline of the body of the motorcycle.

This Agency is currently considering an amendment to the standard that will, if approved, permit the positioning of headlamps and reflectors one above the other when two are mounted on a motorcycle. The necessary rulemaking procedures, if initiated, would take several months and there is no certainty that the contemplated amendment would be issued.

We welcome your further comments and questions.

ID: nht72-1.2

DATE: 02/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Petro Electric Motors, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further response to your letter of December 16, 1971, requesting interpretations of several Federal motor vehicle safety standards as they apply to electric vehicles.

The engine retardation braking effect of Standard No. 102 applies only to vehicles equipped with automatic transmission, and not to an electric vehicle that has no transmission.

Standards Nos. 201 through 204 do not apply to trucks. You have stated that your electric vehicle is designed so that "the rear . . . will normally be used for tools, service equipment, spare parts, etc., as would be required in a service vehicle as used by an electric utility company for going out and making repairs." You have also stated that the back area could be converted to a seating area for two passengers, but that this would be "unusual and occasional." On the basis of this information we have concluded that your vehicle is a "truck" and need not meet Standard Nos. 201-204.

ID: powerliftgate

Mr. Paolo Ivaldi
Fiat Auto R&D U.S.A.
39300 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3473





Dear Mr. Ivaldi:

This responds to your letter of March 20, 2001, and to your telephone conversations with Katherine McDonough of my staff. I am pleased to have this opportunity to answer your question about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 118, "Power-Operated Window, Partition, and Roof-Panel Systems" (49 CFR section 571.118).

You explain that you are designing a power-operated liftgate. By liftgate, you mean the type of vertically-opening back door that is typically found on a sport utility vehicle or van. Your system would allow the user to open and close the liftgate either remotely or by pushing a button on the vehicle console.

With regard to the power-operated liftgate you are designing, you ask three questions. First, you ask whether Standard No. 118 applies to the operation of such power-operated liftgates. Next, assuming that FMVSS No. 118 applies, you ask whether a liftgate, which will operate only when the vehicle's ignition key is in the on position, will satisfy the requirements of FMVSS No.118. Finally, again assuming that FMVSS No. 118 applies, you ask whether the standard requires that you put "pinch sensors along the liftgate openings."

The answer to all of your questions is that FMVSS No. 118 does not apply to power-operated liftgates. Paragraph S2 of FMVSS No. 118 reads, in pertinent part, "this standard specifies requirements for power-operated window, partition, and roof-panel systems." The term partition refers to the type of interior retractable window that might be found in a limousine, and the term roof-panel refers to the type of retractable panels that are commonly known as sunroofs. Accordingly, since a liftgate is not a window, partition, or roof-panel, FMVSS No. 118 does not apply to its operation.

During your conversation with Ms. McDonough, you mentioned that you are voluntarily equipping the liftgate with obstacle sensors. These sensors are capable of detecting the presence of an obstacle in both directions, e.g., both opening and closing, and will stop the motion of the liftgate until the obstacle is removed. We appreciate your effort to reduce the likelihood of injuries caused by the inadvertent closing of a liftgate on an occupant.

Please note that your liftgate must comply with FMVSS No. 206 "Door Locks and Door Retention Components." There are no special exemptions for power doors. Accordingly, your liftgate must meet all of FMVSS No. 206's requirements for back doors. In addition, all other applicable safety standards must be met.

I hope this letter answers your questions. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to call Katherine McDonough at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:118#206
d.5/23/01

ID: nht92-8.22

DATE: March 20, 1992

FROM: John W. Phillips -- Project Engineer, Transportation Research Center of Ohio

TO: Office of Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/5/92 from Paul J. Rice to John W. Phillips (A39; Std. 202)

TEXT:

As instructed by Mr. Ed Jetner of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on March 17, 1992, I am contacting you regarding the FMVSS 202, head restraint standard. The Transportation Research Center Inc. (TRC) has scheduled a FMVSS 202 test on April 7, 1992. FMVSS 202 describes a "dummy having the weight and seated height of a 95th percentile adult male with an approved representation of a human, articulated neck structure, or an approved equivalent test device." The TRC is recommending the use of the Hybrid III large male dummy manufactured by First Technologies, Model Number H3-95-R with the 1992 pelvis upgrade, to conduct this test. TRC believes this dummy represents the most "state of the art" 95th percentile dummy currently available.

Please advise TRC if the Hybrid III large male dummy is an approved equivalent test device for conducting the FMVSS 202 test. Please respond to the undersigned at 513/666-2011 by April 2, 1992. Thank you for your time with this matter.

ID: nht72-5.42

DATE: 03/01/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: Avis M. Hicks

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 14, 1971, in which you ask certain questions relating to "Gross Vehicle Weight Rating" (GVWR) as it would apply to our regulations, 49 CFR 567 and 568. Our requirement that certain weight ratings be applied to a label by vehicle manufacturers is a regulation and not a Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

Gross vehicle weight rating as defined in @ 568 of the regulations "means the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." This was further clarified in the Federal Register on October 8, 1971, 36 (Illegible Words) "To preclude the possibility of understating a vehicle's GVWR, however, the certification regulation is herewith amended to provide that the stated GVWR shall not be less than the sum of unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." Unloaded vehicle weight has been defined as ". . . the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo or occupants," 36 FR 2511.

From the standpoint of the regulation itself, the only other limit on GVWR would be that it should not be more than the sum of the gross axle weight ratings (although it may be less), since otherwise the vehicle would obviously be supplied with axle systems inadequate for its carrying capacity.

Good engineering practice would dictate that weight ratings be based on the weakest component in the system regardless of what it, the weakest component, might be. Of course, weight distribution is one of the factors that must be considered in making these calculations. In the example you have cited, if a manufacturer supplied a rear axle on his vehicle with a stated axle weight rating of 13,000 pounds with tires on the axle having a sum total rating of something less he would be overstating the GVWR of a particular axle on his certification label. GVWR's should not be greater than the total tire capacity or as stated before the sum of the gross axle weight ratings.

If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht80-2.44

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Meon, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Martin D. Davis Meon, Inc. 221-18 Merrick Boulevard Springfield Gardens, New York 11413

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response to your letter of May 12, 1980, requesting interpretation of paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (49 CFR S 575.104). That paragraph provides that to qualify as a limited production tire a tire cannot have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for a new motor vehicle produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater than 10,000 during the preceding calendar year. You ask whether a tire meets this requirement if its size is recommended for use on several new vehicles, none of which is produced in quantities greater than 10,000 yearly, but which in the aggregate account for annual production in excess of 10,000 vehicles.

Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) refers to "a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation (emphasis added)" and "a new motor vehicle (emphasis added)", indicating that the 10,000 vehicle limitation refers to the production or importation of a particular vehicle model, rather than the total of all models for which the tire size is recommended. Thus, if a tire's size is recommended for use on several vehicle models, none of which is produced in or imported into the United States in quantities greater 10,000 during the calendar year preceding the year of the tire's manufacture, the tire would meet the criterion of paragraph (c)(2)(iii).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

MAY 12, 1980

MR. RICHARD J. HIPOLIT OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION ROOM 5219 400 7TH STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

DEAR MR. HIPOLIT:

PURSUANT TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OF TODAY WE REQUEST THAT YOU CLARIFY A POINT.

SEE PAGE 23443 PARAGRAPH 575.04-(III) "A NEW MOTOR VEHICLE". THIS MEANS WHAT? ONE MODEL OR SEVERAL MODELS? MY LAWYER SAYS ONE MODEL. FOR EXAMPLE, SIZE 205/70HR14, NO CAR HAS A PRODUCTION OF 10,000 BUT IF YOU TAKE 5 OR 6 MODELS THEY ADD UP TO 15,000. WHAT DO WE DO?

SINCE YOU INDICATE NO CRITERIA FOR ANYTHING WE ARE USING THE ATTACHED AUTOMOTIVE NEWS LISTS AND THE 1979 TIRE GUIDE.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

MARTIN D. DAVIS MEON, INC.

MDD;AB ENC:

ID: nht94-1.1

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/94 EST

FROM: Tom Delapp -- Executive Coach Builders, Inc.

TO: Chief Council, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/29/94 from John Womack to Tom Delapp (A42; Std. 206)

TEXT:

As a quality manufacturer of limousines we strive to meet or exceed any safety regulation which would affect our customers or their clients. To this end we request an interpretation to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #206, specifically the section which addresses the use of an inside locking mechanism.

Our need for this interpretation is based on the design of a "5th" door conversion that we plan to offer for sale based on the 1993 Lincoln Town Car base vehicle. The door assembly has been evaluated by a professional engineer and has exceeded the requi rement of section #214. It is designed to be opened safely through the use of an electrically controlled solenoid that is accessible by the driver from a parked position. The door panel contains no provisions for occupant control due to the exclusion o f interior and exterior release controls, making the use of a rear door locking mechanism unnecessary.

In a telephone conversation with George Shifflett, Safety Compliance Specialist, he concurred that the provision for an interior lock in this case was redundant, but cautioned that a final interpretation and approval must be issued by your office.

Please address this matter at your earliest convenience. Should you require further information to process this request, please feel free to contact me by phone or writing.

ID: nht73-1.31

DATE: 12/04/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Young Daybrook, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 16, 1973 asking about the proper location of indentification lamps on one-man truck-tractor cabs that are offset from the vertical centerline of the vehicle. In your view "when the Law is applied to one (1) man cabs, the possibility exists that oncoming traffic would interpret the truck as not being in its proper traffic lane."

As you have pointed out, front identification lamps are required by Table II of Standard No. 108 to be "as close as practicable to the tope of the vehicle . . . as close as practicable to the vertical centerline. . . ." The "vertical centerline" is that of the vehicle which is usually that of the cab as well. However, an identification lamp arrangement around the vertical centerline of an offset cab is considered to meet the standard.

We are not aware that an actual safety problem is presented by the current practice of mounting identification lamps around the centerline of offset cabs, and the fact that you produce less than 1,000 vehicles per year does not relieve you of the requirement of providing these lamps.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Young Daybrook Inc.

November 16, 1973

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -- NATIONAL HIGHWAY SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Gentlemen:

We request your assistance in interpreting FMVSS #108; Lamps etc., as applied to the vehicles we manufacture under the "OTTAWA" name and illustrated in the attached brochure #30-2500-4/73. These vehicles are all over 10,000# GVW; all over 80" in width; and all have one (1) man cabs, either 37" or 48" wide; located left of centerline of the vehicle.

The Law requires all truck tractors to have three (3) amber identification lamps "As close as practicable to the verticle centerline". When the Law is applied to one (1) man cabs, the possibility exists that oncoming traffic could interpret the truck as not being in its proper traffic lane.

Your earliest possible response would be appreciated and should it be pertinent, we produce fewer than 1000 trucks per year.

Very truly yours, James H. Swinghammer -- Assistant Chief Engineer

Attachment

ID: aiam2548

Dear Mr. Henderson: This is in reply to your letter of March 23, 1977, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 123, *Motorcycle Controls and Displays*.; You have noted that Table 3 required the headlamp upper beam indicato to be identified as 'High Beam' while its control may be marked 'Hi' and 'Lo' at the appropriate positions. Because of space limitations near the upper beam indicator you would like to use the identification 'Hi Beam.'; In our opinion 'Hi Beam' would meet the intent of Standard No. 123 t provide a clearly recognizable identification for the upper beam indicator since, as you noted, it would make the display read the same as the control.; Sincerely, Frank A. Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-3.52

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: July 1, 1994

FROM: Samson Helfgott -- Helfgott & Jaras, P.C.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice, Esq. -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Our Ref. No.: 12.065

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/20/94 from John Womack to Samson Helfgott (A42; STD 108), letter dated 3/30/89 from Ericka Z. Jones to Samson Helfgott, and letter dated 9/17/90 from Paul Jackson Rice to Samson Helfgott

TEXT: We represent Harold Caine, President of the S.A.F.E. Foundation (Safety Autodrivers Foundation for Education). This organization is actively working to promote highway safety through reduction of automobile accidents. Over the past years, they suggeste d the use of an amber lamp provided adjacent the rear end high mounted red brake lamp and positioned in a separate control and arrangement so as not to impede the operation of the brake lamp. The amber lamp remains on as a "day time driving lamp" as lon g as the car is being operated. When the brake is applied and the brake lamp goes on, the amber lamp goes off. This concept has been discussed with your office and I enclose copies of two previous letters from your office addressing this matter. This concept has already been tested on trucks and has been found to provide substantial reductions in rear end collisions.

Mr. Caine is considering the possibility of utilizing this combination of red and amber lighting arrangement to be placed along the sides of trucks and other vehicles. They would operate in conjunction with the red and amber lights on the rear of the vehicle. Thus, the amber lights on the

4

side would remain on in conjunction with the amber lights at the rear of the vehicle during normal driving of the vehicle. When the brake is applied, the amber lights would automatically turn off and the brake lights on the rear of the vehicle would go on and in conjunction therewith, the red lights on the side of the vehicle would also turn on. Please note that the operation of the brake light is not impaired by the presence of the amber lights so that the brake lights operate directly upon applicati on of the brake independent of the turning on and off of the amber lights.

I would appreciate knowing whether the presence of the red and amber lights on the sides of the vehicle would be permissible under Standard No. 108 and, to the best of your awareness, whether there are any prohibitions that might prevent utilization o f this structure on the sides of the vehicles.

I would appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

Enclosure