ID: nht79-4.50

DATE: 03/28/79

FROM: D. J. ARNOLD -- VESELY COMPANY DIRECTOR OF PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

TO: FREDERIC SCHWARTZ -- OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: Dear Mr. Schwartz:

With issuance of Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8, relating to Vehicle Identification Numbers I must assume the NHTSA is getting closer to "finalizing" FMVSS No. 115 notwithstanding the VIN litigation upcoming in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As such, and in follow-up to my several letters and telephone conversation with you on January 9, 1979 I am again requesting official NHTSA written replies to these as soon as possible to enable our small company to try and comply with the Federal requirements.

To date, I have not received approval of our requested first three digit assignments (letter of October 30, 1978) as required by the standard and I have not received written permission to utilize digits 12 and 13 for our own in-house use (letter of December 11, 1978). Further, I have never received an official answer to my letter to President Carter other than a post card from Secretary Adams saying he will be replying.

All in all, not much action to help our company comply with these Federal mandates. If our company is going to be able to meet the effective date of September 1, 1980 we must have some answers now! Docket No. 1-22; Notice 8 has done nothing to alleviate or reduce this company's burden as I interpret the impact of it. Since we not only manufacture motor homes (MPV's) but recreational trailers as well, we must institute this 17 digit system even though the chassis manufacturer would assign his VIN. We cannot stay with our current VIN system for one product and change to a completely different VIN system for our other products.

Your replies will be anxiously awaited to enable us to continue the necessary work to comply with FMVSS 115 as it now stands by the effective date of September 1, 1980.

Very truly yours,

ID: nht79-4.51

DATE: 01/01/79 EST

FROM: NHTSA

TO: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- ADMINISTRATOR, VEHICLE REGULATIONS VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: A78; STANDARD 115

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1979, requesting an interpretation of the term "restraint system type" as contained in Table I of S4.5.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. In addition, this is in confirmation of Volkswagen's statement of the conclusions reached in the meeting with Messrs. Carson, Parker and Schwartz of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The agency has carefully considered your request that "restraint system type" not be interpreted to require a distinction between active and passive belt systems. The agency must deny your request. As the introduction of mandatory passive restraints approaches, information concerning restraint system type is of exceptional importance to the agency. It is important not only to evaluate the overall effectiveness of passive restraints, but also to determine the effectiveness of the various types of passive restraint system types. Consequently, it is necessary that passive belt systems be differentiated from other restraint system types by decoding the vehicle identification number (VIN).

The agency has also considered the alternative Volkswagen suggested which is to submit this information separately to the agency on a magnetic tape. Motor vehicle safety research is carried out by many organizations aside from the NHTSA, however, and Standard No. 115 is intended to make information available to these other researchers as well. Consequently, the agency can not accept the alternative you suggest.

ID: nht79-4.52

DATE: 09/13/79

FROM: L. R. SCHNEIDER -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY DAVID SCHMELTZER

TO: Market Tire Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Dave Schmeltzer of this office dated August 11, 1971.

In your letter you ask to be advised if it would be permissible under the Tire Identification and Record Keeping Regulation (49 CFR 574) to use your own form, instead of the form supplied by the tire manufacturer, to report the required information to the tire manufacturer.

The regulation does not expressly provide that you must use the form supplied by the tire manufacturer to record the required information. However, from the manufacturer's point of view using a form other than the one he supplied would cause double work and extra expense. As the regulation is presently written this would be a matter between you and the manufacturer.

The problem you describe has been brought to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's attention and methods of giving dealers who handle many different tire manufacturer's lines some relief are presently being considered.

THANK YOU FOR WRITING.

ID: nht79-4.53

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: JOAN CLAYBROOK -- NHTSA

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

TITLE: NONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht79-4.54

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: STERLING TROXEL

TITLE: NONE

TEXT: This confirms your March 15, 1979, conversation with Roger Tilton of my staff in which you asked several questions about the applicability of the school bus safety standards.

First, you asked what vehicles must comply with the standards. The school bus standards apply to new vehicles that transport school children to or from school or related events and that carry more than 10 persons including the driver. For example, any new vehicle that transports 10 passengers (Illegible Words) or from school or related events must comply with the safety standards.

In your second question, you ask whether a school may purchase a used vehicle that does not comply with the school bus safety standards even if the vehicle was manufactured after the effective date of those standards (April 1, 1977). The answer to this question is yes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not regulate the sale or use of used vehicles. Therefore, there would be no Federal penalty upon a person selling such a used vehicle for school use.

With respect to your second question, a school should always examine state licensing requirements, insurance problems, and potential private liability considerations before purchasing noncomplying school vehicles. Vehicles that transport more than 10 persons and that do not comply with the school bus safety standards are much less safe than similar vehicles that do comply with the standards.

ID: nht79-4.55

DATE: 07/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mini-Comtesse

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter asking whether the two vehicles that you manufacture, the Comtesse and the Super-Comtesse, would be considered as mopeds for the purpose of applying Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines motor-driven cycle (moped) as "a motorcycle with a motor that produces 5-brake horsepower or less." A motorcycle is defined as "a motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground." Further, the application of some standards to mopeds depends upon their having a maximum speed obtainable in 1 mile of 30 mph or less.

The Super-Comtesse that you manufacture, since it has 4 wheels, would not qualify as a motorcycle or as a moped. Since this vehicle has many of the aspects of a passenger car, it would be required to comply with the passenger car safety standards. The Comtesse, since it operates on three wheels, would be considered a motorcycle. If the Comtesse meets the other definitional requirements applicable to mopeds, it would be required to comply with the standards applicable to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles.

All Federal motor vehicle safety standards are located in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations in Part 571. Many of the standards are applicable to passenger cars. Only a few standards apply to motorcycles or motor-driven cycles. I am enclosing a package of information pertaining to the applicability of safety standards to mopeds.

The NHTSA has studied three-wheeled vehicles in the past and has had serious reservations about the safety of these vehicles. I am enclosing a copy of an agency notice issued on this subject. We hope that your vehicle does not have similar safety problems.

SINCERELY,

Frank BERNDT

Acting Chief Counsel

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Angers - May 21, 1979

Dear Sir,

Mr. J.M. LORNE of the French Embassy has advised us to contact you relating to the classification of our vehicles in the United States.

We have enclosed leaflets of the COMTESSE and SUPER-COMTESSE manufactured by our Company, and we shall be most obliged if you will please let us know:

- whether these two models may be classified as mopeds by your Administration (2 cycle engine, piston displacement 49 cc)?

- according to the category in which they will be classified, what would be the regulations and driving conditions to be observed?

Looking forward with much interest to your comments and thanking you in anticipation, we are

R. HIRIBARREN Director (Attachments omitted.)

ID: nht79-4.6

DATE: 09/18/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: Safety Engineering Associates Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which has been forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for reply, regarding lap belts and/or shoulder belts for fire trucks.

The enclosed Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are relevant to the installation of safety belts in fire trucks. FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and FMVSS No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Federal motor vehicle safety standards are applicable to new vehicles and require trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles with a gross vehicle rating of more than 10,000 pounds to have either a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt combination seat belt assembly at each designated seating position.

The term "designated seating position" is defined as "Designated seating position means any plan view location capable of accommodating a person at least as large as a 5th percentile adult female, if the overall seat configuration and design and vehicle design is such that the position is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion, except for auxiliary seating accommodations such as temporary or folding jump seats. Any bench or split-bench seat in a passenger car, truck or multipurpose passenger vehicle with a GVWR less than 10,000 pounds, having greater than 50 inches of hip room (measured in accordance with SAE Standard J1100(a)) 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." If the Tillerman's seat is likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion it would be a designated seating position and would have to be equipped with a lap belt or a lap and shoulder belt.

If a particular fire truck were not required to be equipped with seat belts when originally manufactured, it would not subsequently have to be equipped with belts, slace our regulations only apply to new vehicles. For example, a fire truck manufactured before the applicable sections of FMVSS No. 208 became effective did not have to be equipped with belts. Further, no OSHA regulations would require retrofitting of belts in vehicles not originally required to have them.

If we can be of further service in this matter, please feel free to contact us.

ID: nht79-4.7

DATE: 04/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 15, 1979, concerning the definition of "forward control" vehicle contained in 49 CFR 571.3. Your specific concern is how to measure a vehicle's length to determine if "the steering wheel hub is in the forward quarter of the vehicle length."

Overall vehicle length should be determined by measuring the maximum longitudinal distance between the foremost point on the front bumper face bar and the rearmost point on the rear bumper face bar. In the context of the Part 581 Bumper Standard (49 CFR 581), the agency considers bumper guards to be part of the bumper face bar if they are contacted by the impact ridge of the pendulum test device used in compliance testing (43 F.R. 20804, May, 15, 1978). For the purposes of determining vehicle length, the agency will consider bumper guards as a part of the vehicle bumper face bar and thus included in the measurement of vehicle length. Components such as a permanent or fold-down step which are not associated with the bumper system's function are not considered part of the bumper face bar for the purposes of Part 581 Bumper Standard (43 F.R. 40230, Sept. 11, 1978). Therefore, the agency will not consider a permanent or fold-down step as a part of the bumper face bar for the purposes of determining vehicle length.

I have enclosed for your information a notice of proposed rule-making which would extend Standards No. 201, 203 and 204 to forward control vehicles. The notice also states the agency's intention to eliminate the forward control exemption found in other Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

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

SINCERELY,

SHELLER-GLOBE CORPORATION Vehicle Planning and Development Center

February 15, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to request interpretation relating to the NHTSA definition of "forward control."

In determining the front quarter of the vehicle length we need to know what is included in the measurement.

Example would be if the bumper guards on the front bumper are included in the measurement.

Although the vehicle we receive from the manufacturer as a completed vehicle is not certified as a forward control, if we add a step either permanent or fold-up behind the original rear bumper, can this increase in length dimension be used to determine the front quarter of the vehicle?

Your prompt reply will be appreciated.

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

ID: nht79-4.8

DATE: 03/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thomas Built Buses Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 28, 1979, letter asking about the remanufacturing of vehicles using old chassis and new bodies. In particular, you ask whether these vehicles must comply with the new safety standards.

The remanufacturing operation that you mention need not comply with the new safety standards. Such a remanufactured vehicle may need to comply with the safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the used chassis. Otherwise, there might be a rendering inoperative of the compliance of the vehicle with the safety standards. I am enclosing a copy of an interpretation that discusses the remanufacturing issue.

SINCERELY,

Thomas BUILT BUSES, INC.

February 28, 1979

Office Of The Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation

Attn: Roger Tilton

Subject: Body Re-Mount

Dear Mr. Tilton:

We are inquiring with respect to the mounting of a "new" body on an "old" chassis.

In reviewing previous rulings, we find numerous references to the opposite e.g. "new" chassis - "old" body.

It is our understanding that the chassis since it constitutes what is considered the "motor vehicle" is the ruling factor. In other words, any replacement body should and must meet at least the Federal Standards in effect at the time of the manufacturing date of the chassis. It is preferred that the body meet the Federal Standards in effect at the time of body's manufacture.

While you personally may not handle this particular segment of the standards, we would appreciate your forwarding our inquiry to the proper party.

Thanking you in advance, we remain

James Tydings, Specifications Engineer

ID: nht79-4.9

DATE: 07/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Daniel K. Akaka; House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 21, 1979, telephone request asking how automobile dealers can determine when they must sell school buses as opposed to regular vans.

The key factors in making this determination are the purpose for which the vehicle will be used and the passenger carrying capacity of the vehicle. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the school bus safety standards in response to the Motor Vehicle and Schoolbus Safety Amendments of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-492). In defining "schoolbus", Congress drew upon NHTSA's definition of "bus", i.e., any motor vehicle, including a van, designed to carry more than 10 persons. Congress stated that the term "schoolbus" means "a passenger motor vehicle which is designed to carry more than 10 passengers . . . and which the Secretary determines is likely to be significantly used for the purpose of transporting . . . students to or from school or events related to such schools." The NHTSA concluded from this mandate that any vehicle that is a bus and will be used on a regular and recurring basis to transport school children must comply with school bus safety standards. To effect this conclusion, the agency issued a definition of "schoolbus" which is "a bus that is sold or introduced in interstate commerce, for purposes that include carrying students to or from school or related events . . . ."

The effect of the 1974 amendments and the agency's definition is to require any new bus that is sold to transport school children on a regular basis to comply with the safety standards. Compliance is required whether a bus is used regularly to transport students 100 percent of the time or whether it regularly transport students only 10 percent of the time while otherwise transporting adults.