ID: nht72-2.2

DATE: 02/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Cosco Household Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 12, 1972, concerning Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Seating Systems." You ask specific questions, enclosing 3 diagrams, regarding the application of certain provisions of the standard to a child seat you wish to build. You state that this seat in its present form is composed of a tubular steel frame, and has a molded plastic shell to seat the child, to provide head restraint, and to assist in containing the child under lateral decelerations.

You ask whether the shell is a rigid component, stating that it will most probably be manufactured of polyethylene of about .100 inch thickness, and will be deformable by hand. We believe that such a shell could be considered a non-rigid component. There is not at present a definition of "rigid" in the standard and manufacturers should rely on generally available definitions of the term in determining whether or not components are rigid.

You state further that in those areas where the shell contacts the tubular frame it is unquestionably rigid, and ask whether energy-absorbing material could be applied between the frame and the shell, rather than between the shell and the child as specified in S4.10 of the standard. In the particular case you present, it is not clear whether the rigidity of the shell is inherent or results because of its attachment to the frame. If by cushioning this attachment the rigidity will be eliminated, we would no longer consider the component to be rigid. However, the amount of cushioning needed would depend upon the amount necessary to eliminate the rigidity, and would not necessarily be the 1/2-inch thickness specified in S4.10 for covering rigid components. This determination would be for the manufacturer to make, based upon his analysis of when the rigidity has been removed from the component.

With reference to the question presented on sketch 1, we believe it is answered in the preceding paragraphs. Concerning sketch 2 you ask what the standard requires at point N, where there is "essentially no energy-absorbing material between the bottom of the groove and the rigid tube." S4.10 of the standard requires rigid components that may contact the head or torso, with certain exceptions, to be "covered" with energy-absorbing material having a thickness of at least 1/2 inch. If the point N with which you are concerned can contact the head or torso of the child during impact, taking into account compression of the material adjacent to it, then it must be covered with at least the specified thickness of energy-absorbing material.

Your third sketch asks whether energy-absorbing material is required where the shell loops over the tubular steel frame, when the side of the shell is greater than 24 square inches. You are apparently assuming that the area in question is contactable as that term is used in S4.10. In our view the answer to this question depends upon whether the part of the seat in question is actually a "side" and if so if its rigidity is uniform. If the area in question creates a frontal projection we would not consider it to be a "side" under S4.10. If it does not, but the side is significantly more rigid in the area of the tubular frame, then we would not consider the exemption in S4.10.3 to apply, since the shell would not be one component. The hazard created would be identical if the tubular frame were exposed, and not covered by the shell.

Finally, you ask for any information on the status of Notice 5, published September 23, 1970 (35 F.R. 14786). A final rule based on this notice is in preparation, and we expect that it will be issued in the near future. At the same time, we have placed in the docket a report entitled "Report of Test on Child Vehicles and Their Energy Absorbing Materials." This report summarizes recent test work done to investigate test procedures for head restraints and energy absorbing materials for child seats.

ID: aiam3140

Dear Mr. Dingell: This responds to your recent letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr Donald Edwards. Mr. Edwards asks whether the passenger seat in a 1979 Dodge van is required under Federal law to be equipped with a safety belt.; Your earlier answer to Mr. Edwards was correct. Federal Motor Vehicl Safety Standards require light trucks (including vans) to be equipped with safety belts for each designated seating position. The passenger seat in Mr. Edwards' van would qualify as a designated seating position and would be required to have a safety belt.; Under the Federal certification regulations for motor vehicles, an person who alters a vehicle prior to its first purchase for purposes other than resale is required to place an additional label on the vehicle certifying that, as altered, the vehicle continues to be in compliance with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR 567.7). This provision would apply to the dealer who altered Mr. Edwards' vehicle by adding the passenger seat. The label would certify that the vehicle was still in compliance with all standards, including the safety belt requirements. Since the dealer did not install a safety belt, he probably did not place an alterer's label on the vehicle and he would, therefore, be in violation of the certification regulation. If this is the case, the agency has authority to require the dealer to remedy the noncompliance by installing safety belts on the van. Additionally, the dealer could be liable for civil penalties up to $1,000 for failure to comply with the Federal safety standards and regulations.; If Mr. Edwards has any problems in obtaining the required safety belt after receiving this information, please have him contact our Office of Enforcement at 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. (202/426-9700).; Sincerely, Joan Claybrook

ID: aiam5396

"Dear Ms. Jones: This responds to your faxed letter of May 19, 1994. A you explained in your letter: My three month old son has a physical condition whereby the formula that he drinks refluxes back into his throat causing him to choke and become unable to breathe. Due to this condition, I cannot keep his infant seat in the back of the car where I will be unable to reach him and thus prevent him from choking. My problem lies in that I have a passenger as well as a driver's side air bag in our 1993 Ford Taurus Wagon. Due to the danger of having an infant's seat in the front of a car with a passenger air bag, I have contacted local Ford dealers as well as the overall Ford customer service people and have been told each time that they will not disable my car air bags for me as it is against federal law. You requested 'a waiver of a portion of the federal guidelines regarding air bags in automobiles.' Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the act under Standard No. 208 was issued. That section provides that-- (n)o 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. However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the 'render inoperative' prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings. This is to advise you that we would regard a temporary deactivation of the passenger-side air bag in your car in the same way. Based on the results of recent agency research, NHTSA has concluded that rear-facing infant restraints should not be placed in the front seat of a vehicle with a passenger-side air bag. NHTSA would consider the special medical needs of your child as sufficient justification for not taking enforcement action against a dealer that temporarily deactivates the air bag to accommodate your child. I want to add a caution. The purpose of the 'render inoperative' prohibition is to ensure, to the degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, our willingness to permit this deactivation is conditioned on the reactivation of the air bag by the dealer as soon as your son can use a forward-facing child restraint. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that other passengers in this seating position use their safety belts while the air bag is disconnected. I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: nht92-6.12

DATE: June 10, 1992

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 108

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael Love (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

On April 3, 1992, I wrote to you requesting an interpretation of FMVSS 108 regarding center high mounted stop lamps. Your interpretation of the regulations with regard to our proposed design was not consistent with our interpretation. Therefore, we have come up with an alternate design which we believe will be consistent with your interpretation. Since this new design raises several questions, we are requesting another interpretation. The attached document contains that request.

Please contact me at 702/348-3198 if you should have any questions.

Attachment

PORSCHE REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION

Porsche is considering a new design of center high mounted stop lamp (CHMSL) for its 911 Carrera model. In order to accommodate a moveable rear spoiler, the CHMSL would consist of two separate lamps: Lamp A would be mounted on the front edge of the moveable spoiler; Lamp B would be mounted on the rear edge of the moveable spoiler. Both lamps are on the center line of the car. This dual light system would function as follows:

From 0 to 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the down position. The CHMSL Lamp A would function (when the brakes were engaged). CHMSL Lamp B would not function.

At 5O+/-5mph when the spoiler is rising, Lamp A would function until the spoiler is approximately 35% up. At this point Lamp B would begin functioning and Lamp A would be disabled.

Above 50+/-5mph the spoiler would be in the up position and Lamp B would function (when the brakes were engaged).

As the speed drops below 5O+/-5mph the Spoiler would remain in the up position until approximately 9+/-3mph and Lamp B would function.

At 9+/-3mph when the spoiler is lowering, Lamp B would function until the spoiler reached the 35% up position. At this point Lamp A would begin functioning and Lamp B would be disabled.

With this design we expect that all photometric and height requirements of FMVSS 108 will be met with switching from Lamp A to Lamp B while the spoiler is moving. It is possible that it will be necessary to have both Lamp A and Lamp B functioning together for a short period of time in order to fulfill photometric requirements.

We have identified the following issues and request NHTSA's views on them:

The switching from Lamp A to Lamp B does not violate the "steady burning" requirement of FMVSS 108.

There is no problem with having two separate CHMSLs as long as they fulfill the requirements of FMVSS 108 while they are capable of functioning, either separately or together.

Having Lamp B drop below the height requirement of FMVSS 108 is not a problem if it is not capable of functioning while below that level (i.e.: If it is no longer capable of functioning (lighting), then it is no longer a lamp by definition).

ID: nht87-2.58

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/27/87

FROM: CHARLOTTE E. O'NEIL

TO: ADMINISTRATOR -- NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 2-16-88, TO CHARLOTTE E. O'NEIL, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TEXT: Could you give me an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101 (copy enclosed) which reads, in part, that the purpose of the standard is to "ensure the accessibility . . . of motor vehicle controls . . . in order to reduce the safety ha zards caused by . . . mistakes in selecting controls." Under S5.1, it states that the location of the controls must be where they are "operable by the driver" (while wearing a seat belt). It does not, however, say specifically that the controls must be placed where they can be reached comfortably, or that they cannot be placed somewhere that would tend to increase the possibility of the driver making a mistake in his or her selection of that particular control.

Therefore, with this wording, would you assume that any control that can be reached at all, even with difficulty, must be considered "operable"?

Perhaps the situation I am concerned about will help clarify my question:

I drive a school bus. My company recently acquired, through corporate merger, several buses that have the seat and the foot pedals lined up so that the seat is about four inches too far to the right. In order to reach the brake pedal I have to cross my right foot over my left. The clutch and accelerator are both moved over proportionately. On several occasions I have gone to hit the clutch and accidentally hit the brakes instead, (no big deal). Once, I missed the brakes completely when I went to put them on (somewhat bigger deal). My concern is that in an emergency situation, a child running in front of the bus, for example, that the driver would react spontaneously and go to slam on the brakes and accidentally hit the accelerator instead, whic h is located where you expect the brakes to be.

I asked my boss to move the seat so that the clutch/brakes/accelerator are in the place they usually are in relation to the seat (or more specifically, to the driver sitting on the seat.) He said he'd like to be able to make the adjustments

I asked for since nobody wants to drive the buses, anyway, but he can't because the manufacturer will not be liable for the structure of the bus if it is modified by the owner.

I looked up all the laws I could find on the subject and not one of them said, exactly, "You have to put the brakes in the right place." 49 CFR Ch. V 571.101 was the closest I could find. If Standard 101 was intended to forbid putting controls in dif ficult to reach locations, could you please state it unambiguously so I can ask a local inspector to check the buses for noncompliance? If not, is there any way I can get the law changed?

If you have any other information or know of any other laws relating to this I would appreciate it if you could let me know about them, too.

Thank you very much for whatever time or thought you give to me on this.

ID: nht88-1.94

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/13/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 18090-9015

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays, in connection with a design for head up displays (HUD's) that you are planning to introduce in certain future vehicles. The HUD's would protect readings from selected displays so that they appear as if they were located above the front bumper. The displays would initially include the following: speedometer, turn signal, highbeam, hazard, and low fuel warning. You stated that the HUD's would supplement corresp onding instrument panel displays, and would this be 'redundant displays.' You plan to provide the same light intensity for all of the HUD's, which would be variable and could be turned off by the driver.

You noted that section @5.3.4(b) of Standard No. 101 states in part that the telltales and identification for brakes, highbeams, turn signals, and safety belts may not be adjustable under any driving condition to a level that is invisible, and requested the agency's concurrence that variable illumination intensity, including levels at which the displays would not be visible, is permissible for the redundant (but not the other) turn signal and highbeam telltales. This letter provides our concurrence.

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

Standard No. 101 specifies requirements for the location, identification, and illumination of motor vehicle controls and displays. The purpose of the standard is to ensure the accessibility and visibility of motor Vehicle controls and displays and to fac ilitate their selection under daytime and nighttime conditions, in order to reduce the safety hazards caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the driving task, and by mistakes in selecting controls.

Standard No. 101 does not itself require that any particular controls or displays be furnished, although several of the controls and displays regulated by the standard are required by other safety standards. The standard instead provides that if certain controls and displays are furnished, they must meet the requirements of the standard. Controls and displays not listed in the standard are not subject to its requirements, except that section 55.3.5 specifies anti-glare requirements for certain sources o f illumination used for the controls and displays not otherwise regulated by Standard No. 101.

No. 101 apply to redundant displays. It is our opinion that where a manufactures provides more than one of a particular display listed in Standard No. 101, e.g., two speedometers, the requirements of the standard for that listed display are met of one of the displays complies with the standard's requirements. The standard's purposes of ensuring the accessibility and visibility of a particular display are fully satisfied by the complying display. Thus, the requirements need not be met again for a redunda nt display. However, redundant gauges, like other gauges not otherwise regulated by Standard No. 101, are subject to the requirements of section @5.3.5. (Telltales are excluded from the requirements of that section.) This interpretation is limited to where a manufacturer provides more than one of a particular telltale or gauge listed in Standard No. 101. We note, for example, that if a manufacturer provides a single fuel level gauge and a single fuel level telltale, neither display would be considered redundant, since gauges and telltales provide different types of information.

With respect to your planned design, it is our opinion that if the turn signal and high beam telltales located on the instrument panel comply with Standard No. 101, the turn signal and high beam telltales provided as HUD's need not meet the standard's re quirements. The light intensities of the turn signal and highbeam telltales provided as HUD's would thus be at the discretion of the manufacturer. Therefore, we concur that variable illumination intensity, including levels at which the displays would not be visible, is permissible for these displays.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 17, 1988

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Nassif Building Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

This letter is a request for an interpretation from the NHTSA concerning head up displays (HUDs) and the illumination requirements of FMVSS 101 with respect to certain telltales.

General Motors is planning to introduce head up displays in certain future vehicles. The HUD provides redundant selected vehicle information which appears visible through the windshield. The driver can see through the HUD image which is projected to appe ar as if it is located above the front bumper at a height that is adjustable to accommodate varying driver seated heights. Displays which are now being considered for inclusion in the initial HUD are speedometer, turn signal, highbeam, hazard and low fue l warning. The HUD is capable of operation while the ignition is in the ON position, and is not operational when the ignition is in the ACCESSORY, LOCK, OFF or START positions. The illumination of the present design of this display can be varied over dif ferent ranges of light intensity depending upon whether the parking lights are on or off. When the parking lights are on, the greatest light intensity is substantially less than with the parking lights off. A thumb wheel control for HUD illumination is l ocated on the left side of the instrument panel. It is identified by "HUD Dimmer" above the control, with "LO" (Left) and "HI" (Right) indicating the direction that the wheel must be turned to control illumination. This design permits the driver to adjus t the illumination intensity to a comfortable level of visibility for any ancient lighting condition. The HUD can also be turned off at the option of the driver by moving the thumb wheel illumination control to the extreme low end. Our intent is to provi de the same variable intensity for all head up displays, including the turn signal and highbeam telltales. We seek the agency's concurrence that variable illumination intensity, including levels at which the displays would not be visible, is permissible for the redundant turn signal and highbeam telltales. @5.3.4(b) of FMVSS 101 states in part that: " ... the telltales and identification for brakes, highbeams, turn signals, and safety belts may not be adjustable under any driving condition to a level th at is invisible."

As mentioned above, the turn signal and highbeam displays to be included in the HUD are supplemental to primary instrument panel telltales. The primary telltales would comply with the FMVSS 101 illumination requirement cited above. The question, then, is whether the supplemental head up displays are also subject to this FMVSS 101 requirement. Our reasons for believing that the head up displays are not subject to this requirement are as follows:

They are redundant displays. FMVSS 101 does not specifically indicate whether redundant displays are subject to the illumination requirements. In the absence of clear direction from the wording of the standard, we believe a reasonable interpretation of t he standard would allow a HUD design that can be dimmed to an invisible level since no confusion or driver distraction can arise from the absence of a HUD inasmuch as the vehicle still offers the normal telltales. We believe another reason for permitting dimmable head up displays, including those for turn signal and highbeam, relates to the wide variation of lighting conditions in which it must operate. Because the subject displays appear to be outside the vehicle in the driver's forward view, it is imp ortant that the driver be able to control the brightness of the display. Accordingly, we believe that dimmability of the head up displays is more in line with the intent of FMVSS 101 than would be the alternative of maintaining the turn signal and highbe am head up displays at full illumination intensity at all times.

Some drivers may, for whatever reason, prefer conventional instrument panel displays to head up displays. A provision enabling drivers to turn the HUD off will accommodate this important customer satisfaction concern.

- Invisibility of redundant turn signal and highbeam telltales is not inconsistent with rulemaking history. We have reviewed the rulemaking history of FMVSS 100 and 101 and have located nothing which specifically addresses redundant displays of telltales . We have researched previous interpretation letters issued by the NHTSA for guidance in this matter. We have located several letters which the agency has written concerning the applicability of FMVSS 101 requirements to redundant controls; however, we hav e located no interpretation which addresses the applicability of FMVSS 101 to redundant displays. In the interpretations we have reviewed, the NHTSA has generally maintained that redundant controls are subject to FMVSS 101 requirements. An exception was a letter from the agency to Mazda in July of 1984, which distinguished rear seat controls from the visibility requirement of FMVSS 101. In distinguishing secondary rear seat controls, NHTSA explained that a stated purpose of FMVSS 101 (reducing the safet y hazard caused by the diversion of the driver's attention from the road) would not be compromised by the fact that the driver could not see the identification of rear seat controls. In other instances, where NHTSA has indicated that redundant controls a re subject to FMVSS 101 requirements, it has again based these determinations on the purpose of the standard. While there is some potential for misuse of redundant controls, there is no corresponding potential for "misuse" of redundant displays. That is, the subject head up displays will either be visible or invisible to the driver. If they are visible, there is no issue. If the driver chooses to make them invisible, and therefore not use the HUD, it cannot be relied upon or misused. Further, absence of the head up displays will not result in the driver being deprived of turn signal or highbeam information, sin ce this information would continue to be available from the primary instrument panel telltales.

We have located a single interpretation letter from NHTSA with respect to a HUD. It was dated June 19, 1987, and responded to a manufacturer's request for an interpretation of the requirements of FMVSS 205 related to a membrane in the lower left corner o f the windshield that reduced light transmissibility below 708. With regard to the issues discussed in this June 19, 1987 NHTSA interpretation, we would point out that GM vehicles equipped with HUDs will comply with all of the requirements of FMVSS 103, 104 and 205.

In summary, we believe that it is not only permissible, but also preferable, to provide variable illumination intensity for head up displays. Variable illumination for HUDs best satisfies the intent of FMVSS 101 and the interests of customer satisfaction . Furthermore, FMVSS 101, and previous NHTSA interpretations of which we are aware, do not expressly prohibit dimmability of redundant displays.

If further information concerning our planned head up displays would expedite the agency's response to this request for interpretation, we would be pleased to provide such information.

Sincerely,

Robert A. Rogers, Director Automotive Safety Engineering

cc: Ms. Diane Steed, Administrator, NHTSA Mr. Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA USG 2623

ID: aiam0626

Dear Mr. Ziegler: This is in reply to your letter of February 7, 1972, to th Administrator, in which you requested 'clarification' of two requirements of Standard 207 that impose forces on rearward facing seats.; We do not believe that the requirements are unclear. S4.2(b) requires rearward facing seat to withstand a force of 20 times its weight applied in a rearward direction, while S4.3.2.2 requires the restraining device not to release or fail under an acceleration of 20 g's in the direction opposite to that in which the seat folds.; You suggest that these forces and accelerations are equivalent to thos in a 30 mph barrier impact, and point out that none of the existing standards provides for a 30 mph rear impact. The intent of the cited sections is to require rear facing seats to withstand the force of rear end collisions, which occur frequently and are often of considerable severity. We have some doubt that the 20 g acceleration is equivalent to a 30 mph rear barrier impact, frontal 30 mph impacts typically produce accelerations of 30 to 40 g's. Whether it is or not is irrelevant, however, to the validity of the standard. The standard is clear in its own terms, and in our judgment its requirements are appropriate and feasible.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Acting Associate Administrator, Moto Vehicle Programs;

ID: nht80-1.11

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volvo of America Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent letter and visit to the NHTSA regarding the proper designated seating capacity for the Volvo 262C Coupe. The rear bench seat in this vehicle is 53.15 inches wide and has two depressed areas with contoured upholstery to fashion bucket seats. You ask whether the seat may be designated as having only two seating positions.

It is the agency's opinion that the rear seat in the Volvo 262C Coupe must have three designated seating positions. The definition of "designated seating position" provides, in part, that any bench or split-bench seat having greater than 50 inches of hip room shall have not less than three designated seating positions, "unless the seat design or vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used for seating" (49 CFR 571.3). The rear seat in the Volvo Coupe is substantially over this 50-inch caveat in the definition, since it has more than 53 inches of hip room. Further, the seat design is not such that the center position cannot be used for seating. The center position is well padded on both the seat cushion and the seat back and there is no impediment to use of the position. This was demonstrated when several persons sat at the center position when your demonstration vehicle was brought to the agency.

Your letter mentions that the Volvo Coupe has less head room than other Volvo models, yet there is sufficient head room even at the center position for large persons to occupy the seat. Therefore, we do not believe that the vehicle design is such that the center position cannot be used. The fact that the two outboard positions of the rear seat are aesthetically designed to appear as bucket seats is irrelevant, since the center position is a well-padded integral part of the entire bench seat. Other current models have the same type bucket seat appearance in the rear seat, yet because of hip room have three designated seating positions. You might examine the 1978 Oldsmobile Regency Sedan, for example.

We noted in the demonstration model that the rear seat of the Volvo Coupe has an arm rest at the center position that folds into the seat back. If the design of this arm rest were modified to be permanently attached to the seat cushion, the center position could not be used. The bench seat would then qualify as a two-person seat under the definition of "designated seating position".

Finally, I would emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the information supplied in your letter and an examination of the demonstration model brought to the agency. 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 the vehicles in accordance with that determination.

SINCERELY,

December 7, 1979

Robert Nelson National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Nelson:

This letter is sent in response to your request for information concerning the rear seat dimensions of the Volvo 262C Coupe. The width of the seat (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100 (a)) is 1350 mm, 53.15 inches compared to 1430 mm (56.30 in.) for other Volvo vehicles.

We are providing a Volvo Coupe for your inspection on December 11, 1979 at your offices in Washington, D. C. The Volvo Coupe is a limited production vehicle, about 1500 are expected to be sold in the United States this model year. As you know, all other Volvo models (DL, GL, GLE & GT) have a rear seat different from the Coupe and were designed to accommodate three designated rear seating positions. The rear seating depressions and design of the upholstery of the Volvo Coupe are intended to provide occupancy for two persons. The choice of a depression to divide the two seating positions was influenced by the reduced head room, as compared to other Volvo models. Based on these differences from the other Volvo models, we believe that the Volvo Coupe should be classified as a 4 passenger vehicle.

If we can provide any additional information, please let me know.

VOLVO OF AMERICA CORPORATION Product Planning and Development

Richard Tearle, Engineer, Regulatory Affairs

ID: 1983-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Empire Construction Co. Inc. -- H.J. Lindekugel, Consultant

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. J. Lindekugel Consultant Empire Construction Co., Inc. East 10310 Montgomery Box 11012 Spokane, Washington 99211

Dear Mr. Lindekugel:

This responds to your recent letter asking if the rim marking requirements of Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicle Other Than Passenger Cars, apply to "remanufactured truck wheels." They do not.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 120 sets forth rim marking requirements applicable to all new rims manufactured on and after September 1, 1977, and designed for use on motor vehicles other than passenger cars. Remanufactured wheels are considered used wheels instead of new wheels for purpose of Standard No. 120, and so are not subject to the rim marking requirements.

Should you need any further information or have any further questions in this area, please contact Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff at (202)426-2992.

Sincerely, Original Signed by Frank Berndt

Attention: Attorney for Rulemaking

Re: DOT number for remanufacturing process

Greetings: This writer was referred to you by Lauretta Carlson, Highway Safety Program Area Director, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Seattle, WA.

The point of inquiry is whether or not a DOT identification number is necessary for a re-manufactured truck wheel, not a repaired wheel. The review made with Lauretta Carlson showed no such standards as a pre-requisite. She sent me a copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, 57-119 and 57-120 which confirmed her judgement she suggested this letter.

Please advise the writer if the position she has taken is correct.

Very Truly Yours,

H. J. Lindekugel, Consultant

ID: 11-000700 J.Hoffrichter (Std No. 207)