ID: nht80-3.19

DATE: 07/14/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 10, 1980, letter requesting an interpretation of the appropriate tire size markings required to appear on a vehicle's certification label by 49 CFP. Part 567. More specifically, you stated that Michelin intends to supply truck tires to an American truck manufacturer labeled with the tire size designations set forth by the International Standardization Organization (ISO).

Michelin listed the following as an example of an ISO size designation: 275/80R22.5 143/140K. The labeling in that example would not comply with the requirements of Standard 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), so the tire manufacturer, Michelin in this case, would be permitted to sell tires with only that labeling. Further, any truck manufacturer citing tire information in this manner on its certification label would be violating Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120) and Part 567.

Paragraph S6.5 of Standard 119 specifies that all tires for vehicles other than passenger cars must have certain markings on the sidewalls. Among other things, these tires must show the actual number of plies in the tire, the composition of the ply cord material (S6.5(f)), and a letter designating the load range (S6.5(j)). As you stated in your letter, the ISO designation does not show the number and composition of the plies and, therefore, does not satisfy this requirement of Standard 119. You further stated in your letter that the 143/140 designation in the ISO marking shows the load carrying capacity of the tire. In the ISO system, the letter K denotes the speed rating for the tire, and not the load carrying capacity. Standard 119 explicitly requires a letter marking to denote the load range of the tire and your proposed use of the ISO marking fails to satisfy that requirement also.

The vehicle manufacturer is required by paragraph S5.3 of Standard 120 to affix a label to the vehicle providing information on appropriate tires and rims for the vehicle. Similarly, 49 CFR @ 567.4 requires a vehicle manufacturer to list a suitable tire size after the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) on the vehicle certification label. Subparagraph S5.3.1 of Standard 120 requires the label to include the size designation of tires appropriate for the GAWR.

To list the tire size designation appropriate for the GAWR, the vehicle manufacturer must list more than the dimensions of the tire (e.g., 7.50-20 in the truck example following S5.3 in Standard 120). This is because many truck tires have identical dimensions, but widely varying load carrying capacities. For instance, the 7.50-20 size tire comes in load range D, F, and G, with its load carrying capabilities ranging from 2,750 pounds for load range D up to 4,150 pounds for load range G. Thus, for the vehicle manufacturer to comply with the requirement that it show an appropriate tire size, the manufacturer must show both the dimensions and the load range of the appropriate tires.

The reason for requiring the vehicle manufacturer to list appropriate tires for the vehicle is to give the vehicle user a permanent and useful record of the tires that can safely be used on the vehicle. If a vehicle manufacturer were to use an ISO designation to indicate the load range of those tires, the user of the vehicle would be given information different from the letter designations which are required by Standard 119 to appear on the tires. Since needless confusion could arise from this situation, and this confusion would impair the purpose of the tire information labels, Standard 120 and Part 567 necessarily require that the load carrying capabilities of the tires be expressed in terms of a letter, as specified in Standard 119.

SINCERELY,

REF: PART 567

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group

10 June 1980

Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: Part 567 Certification

Dear Sir:

We intend to supply truck tires to an American truck manufacturer with size designations according to the standards of the International Standardization Organization (I.S.O.). An example of such a size marking is:

275/80R22.5 143/140K

You can see that there is no ply rating in this designation; the load carrying capacity being designated instead by the load index 143/140. These load indices have been established by the I.S.O.

As you know, Part 567 requires that truck manufacturers list a suitable tire size after the GAWR on the certification plate. We do not see anything in the regulations that would prohibit listing a tire with the I.S.O. size designation. However, the truck manufacturer has requested that we confirm that listing such a tire will be in accordance with D.O.T. regulations.

We are therefore requesting your written confirmation in this regard.

Your prompt attention to this request would be appreciated.

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht80-3.2

DATE: 06/11/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Questor Corporation

COPYEE: D. F. MITCHELL -- V. P. AND GEN. MGR, QUESTOR JUVENILE FURNITURE CO.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 9, 1980, to Stephen Oesch of my office concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You requested an interpretation of whether, an alternative configuration you are considering for the Kantwet "One Step" child restraint would comply with Section 6.1.2.2.1(c) of the standard.

You described the configuration as one in which the crotch strap would be modified so that it "is permanently attached to the shield (in a manner similar to the two upper torso restraints which the [agency's] April 29th letter stated were integral parts of the shield. The bottom end of the crotch strap would be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is seated."

As you have described the modified crotch strap, it is an integral part of the movable shield since it is not a separate device that must be attached to the shield each time the restraint is used, but is formed as a unit with the shield. Since the crotch strap is an integral device, it can be attached during the testing of the restraint.

As mentioned in our letter of April 29, 1980, we urge that you and other manufacturers take the additional step of assuring that the upper torso restraint and the crotch strap permanently remain integral parts of the adjustment or anchorage device to which they are attached.

SINCERELY,

Questor Corporation

May 9, 1980

Steven Oesch National Highway Traffic Administration United States Department of Transportation

Re: NOA-30

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Mr. Frank Berndt's letter of April 29, 1980, addressed to our Mr. J. P. Koziatek, P.E., has been referred to my attention for follow-up. As stated in our phone conversation of today, it appears that the basis of the opinion expressed in that letter is contained in the first sentence of the third paragraph: "The crotch strap used in the Kantwet 'One Step' is not an integral part of the movable shield." That paragraph continues, "The crotch strap is a separate device . . . In Contrast, the two upper torso restraints appear to be integral parts of the shield since they are designed to remain attached to an adjustment device and anchorage which are in turn permanently affixed to the shield."

The purpose of this letter is to suggest an alternative configuration for the subject seat embodying a crotch strap that would fall within the above quoted parameters, and request an interpretation of the modified configuration vis-a-vis Section S6.1.2.2.1(c) of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The modified crotch strap to be used in the Kantwet "One Step" would be an integral part of the movable shield, that is permanently attached to the shield (in a manner similar to the two upper torso restraints which the April 29th letter stated were integral parts of the shield). The bottom end of the crotch strap would be buckled to the base of the seat between the child's legs after the child is seated.

Your department's prompt opinion would be greatly appreciated, inasmuch as we need to finalize design of the seat at this time in order to be in compliance with the Standard by its effective date, and to comply with the catalog printing deadlines of certain of our customers.

Ronald A. Kramer Assistant General Counsel

ID: nht80-3.20

DATE: 07/15/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 29, 1980, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 with respect to headlamp design. Specifically, General Motors asks whether a headlamp with a mounting tang that differs from the design illustrated in SAE Standard J571d, Dimensional Specifications for Sealed Beam Headlamp Units, June 1976 and SAE Recommended Practice J1132, 142 mm x 200 mm Sealed Beam Headlamp Unit, January 1976 is permissible. It is your opinion that this variance has no effect upon headlamp interchangeability or otherwise affects safety.

As you know, paragraph S4.1.1 requires headlamps to be "designed to conform" to SAE materials incorporated by reference, which include J571d and J1132. The SAE materials contain detailed drawings and dimensional requirements which manufacturers have followed in headlamp design. Standard No. 108 has been criticized for its specificity regarding headlamps although this aspect of it has been judicially upheld as necessary to the overall safety performance of the headlighting system. Standardization through such specificity is necessary to achieve the safety goals of interchangeability and ease of replacement.

To encourage innovation and relieve manufacturers of unnecessary restrictions, as well as to enhance the performance aspects of Standard No. 108, we believe that a manufacturer can certify that its headlamps have been designed to conform to Standard No. 108 without the necessity of strict adherence to the SAE dimensions if the safety purposes of Standard No. 108 are in no way compromised. Principally, headlamps must continue to be interchangeable with those of like nominal dimensions. With this in mind, the tang design postulated by General Motors is not prohibited by Standard No. 108 provided that headlamps incorporating it are interchangeable with those that meet all the design specifications of SAE J571d and SAE J1132.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht80-3.21

DATE: 07/21/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear Mr. Gerth:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an inter pretation concerning the term "overall width" as used in Safety Standard No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems (49 CFR 571.104). You asked whether passenger car door handles would be included in the measurement of a vehicle's overall width.

Safety Standard No. 104 defines "overall width" as the maximum overall body width dimension "W116," as defined in section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. The "W116" standard specifies that overall width is measured across the body, excluding hardware and applied moldings, but including fenders when integral with the body. We would consider passenger car door handles to be vehicle "hardware." Therefore, door handles would not be included in the measurement of overall vehicle width.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

June 5, 1980

Attn: Office of Chief Counsel

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 - Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems, Request for Interpretation

Dear Madame or Sir:

Your interpretation i s requested on the definition of "overall width" as used in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 104 -Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems. Section S3 of that Standard defines "overall width" as being the maximum overall body width dimension "W116" as defined in Section E, Ground Vehicle Practice, SAE Aerospace-Automotive Drawing Standards, September 1963. This second Standard contains the statement that "overall width" is measured across body, excluding hardware and applied mouldings, but including fenders when integral width body.

Your interpretation of this definition is requested as to whether or not the term "hardware" would include passenger vehicle door handles. This would exclude door handles from the measurement of the overall width of a vehicle.

Should you require additional infomation on this request, do not hesitate in contacting Mr. G. M. Hespeler of our Safety Engineering Department, (201) 573-2616. As a point of infomation, your response dated March 18, 1980, to a previous request for interpretation regarding body trim mouldings is also attached for your review.

Very truly yours,

HG:Web

ID: nht80-3.22

DATE: 07/23/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo USA Office

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking questions concerning the strength and location requirements under Safety Standard No. 210 for anchorages used with automatic seat belt systems.

Your first question asked about the force loads required for testing anchorages for a Type 1 lap belt (manual belt) and for testing a single diagonal automatic belt, when the two belts are used in conjunction with one another as part of a total system. The agency has stated in the past that the anchorages for a single diagonal automatic belt should be tested with a 3,000-pound force for purposes of Safety Standard No. 210, in accordance with the test procedures of paragraph S5.2. This is the same force that is required for testing the upper torso portion of a Type 2 seat belt system. This force requirement is applicable whether the single diagonal automatic belt is used alone or whether it is used in conjunction with an manual lap belt. The anchorages for the manual lap belt, however, would be required to withstand test forces of 5,000 pounds under paragraph S4.2.1 of Standard No. 210, not 3,000 pounds as indicated in your letter. The anchorages for the manual lap belt and for the automatic belt must separately meet their respective force requirements and would not have to be tested simultaneously since they are separate systems.

In your second question, you asked about the number of anchorages that are required for various combinations of systems. Paragraph S4.1.1 of Safety Standard No. 210 requires anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly to be installed for each forward-facing outboard designated seating position in passenger cars. This is true regardless of whether the seating position is equipped with an air bag and a lap belt, with a single diagonal automatic belt or with any other system. Safety Standard No. 210 is independent of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Thus, in your hypothetical designated "A", case "A-2" is correct. Three anchorage points are required by Safety Standard No. 210, even though Safety Standard No. 208 only requires that a lap belt be installed. The presence of the Type 2 anchorages in vehicles will allow vehicle owners to install easily Type 2 belts at their own initiative if they desire to do so for whatever reason. For example, if a single diagonal automatic belt system has been damaged, an owner may wish to replace it with a Type 2 manual belt system.

Under paragraph S4.3 of Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages for automatic belts are exempted from the location requirements of the standard. This exception was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs to determine the optimum anchorage locations in terms of both effectiveness and comfort (43 FR 53440, Nov. 16, 1978). If, however, the anchorage points for an automatic belt do not fall within the locations specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, the manufacturer would have to provide additional anchorage points that could be used by a properly located Type 2 manual belt.

In response to your hypothetical question deignated "B", case "B-b-1" would not comply with the requirement for Type 2 anchorages since there are only two points. Case "B-b-2" would comply if all three anchorages points comply with the location requirements of the standard for Type 2 belts. Case "B-b-3" would require five anchorage points if points "1" and "2" could not qualify as properly located points of a Type 2 anchorage system.

In your question designated "B-C", cases "B-C-1", "B-C-2" and "B-C-3" would all comply with Safety Standard No. 210 if all points indicated in each example are within the locations specified for Type 2 anchorages. In case "B-C-4", the system would comply if point "1" is within the location specified in the standard for Type 2 belts, and point "4" would not be necessary if both points "1" and "2" are within the proper locations. All the anchorage points indicated in "B-C-5" are necessary if points "1" and "2" are not in the proper locations.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

SINCERELY,

MAZDA

Toyo Kogyo U.S.A. Representative Office Detroit Branch

May 5, 1980

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir,

Subject: Question concerning the seat belt anchorages.

We have some questions concerning the strength and location of the seat belt anchorages which are used for the automatic seat belt system.

QUESTION 1 - The strength of the anchorages for automatic seat belt.

According to FMVSS No. 210, there is not a definition or a specification for the two point automatic seat belt which is called a diagonal belt. Our interpretation is shown below. We would like to know whether it is correct.

-Each belt is subjected to the load of 3000 lbs. simultaneously.

(Graphics Omitted)

Reason:

According to the current FMVSS No. 210, the 3 point seat belt system (Type 2) is required to withstand the load of 3000 lbs. for each lap and upper torso portion. In the case of the two point automatic seat belt, there are two ways to wear it. One manner is to wear it with the active lap belt, and the other is to wear it without the active lap belt.

When the seat belts are worn in the first manner, the load condition during an accident for each belt is nearly equal to the condition of the 3 point belt system.

Even if the seat belt is worn in the latter manner, the load for the diagonal seat belt is nearly the same compared to the upper torso portion of the 3 point belt system, because of the existance of the knee bolstor which is expected to support the load of the lower occupants body, and which has the same function of the active lap belt.

Therefore, we think the load condition of the anchorages for the two point seat belt system may be the same as the condition for the 3 point belt system.

QUESTION 2 - The location and the number of the anchorages for the automatic seat belt system.

According to the provision of FMVSS No. 210 Sec. 4.1.1, each forward facing outboard seating position in passenger cars is required to install the anchorages for type 2 seat belt assembly.

According to the provision of FMVSS No. 208, if we adopt the automatic belt system as the second option (Sec. 1.2.2) for the passive restraint system, we have to install the anchorages for the type 1 or type 2 seat belt. Although in this case, the location of the anchorage is exempt but the total number of the anchorages is not clear from the standpoint of No. 208, 209.

(A) When we adopt the air cushion restraint system how many anchorages are required?

Case A-1

2 lap anchorages for lap belt required by FMVSS 208 4.1.2.1.b2)

Case A-2

3 anchorages for type 2 required by FMVSS 210 4.3.

(Graphics omitted)

(B) When we adopt the 2 point automatic seat belt system, which is correct?

B-b 2 point automatic seat belt without active lap belt.

(Graphics omitted)

* Remarks

* - The anchorages marked this way, may or may not comply with the requirement of FMVSS 210 4.3.

* - The anchorages marked this way, must comply with the requirement of FMVSS 210 4.3.

(3)(4)(5) - are additional anchorages for the active type 2 seat belt required by FMVSS 210.

B-C 2 point automatic seat belt with active lap belt.

Case

(Graphics omitted)

* Remarks

The meanings of marks * and * are the same as B-b.

(4)(5) are additional anchorages for the active type 2 seat belt required by FMVSS 210.

M. Ogata Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo USA Office

cc: B. SMITH -- OFC. OF VEHICLE STANDARDS CRASHWORTHINESS DIV.

ID: nht80-3.23

DATE: 07/29/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 29 1980

NOA-30

Mr. Roger Maugh Automotive Safety Director Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn, Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This is in response to your request for our comments concerning the prototype automatic belt system on the demonstration vehicle you brought to the agency several weeks ago. You were particularly concerned about past agency comments regarding automatic belt designs of this type that are so easily disconnectable.

We are concerned about automatic belt designs whose release mechanisms are so similar to those of current manual belts that they may actually encourage disconnection by motorists. By the same token, however, we realize that an automatic belt design that is extremely difficult to disconnect could lead to frustration of a motorist who does not wish to use it and to permanent defeat of the belt system. This, of course, is also not desirable since it would deprive a subsequent vehicle occupant who wanted to use the belt of protection. We hope manufacturers will develop innovative systems that will minimize these conflicting concerns.

Regarding the particular design that you demonstrated at our meeting, the release mechanism appears to be in compliance with the current provisions of Safety Standard No. 208. This is not to say, however, that additional features to discourage disconnection of the system are not desirable.

We were also concerned with other aspects of your automatic belt. For example, when the vehicle door was open the belt webbing lay on the vehicle seat, making entry into the vehicle both confusing and difficult for a vehicle occupant. Since such a design requires the occupant to lift the belt webbing, it could prove to be very inconvenient, particularly if the occupant is carrying an object like a bag of groceries. As you are aware, the recent proposal concerning seat belt comfort and convenience included a specification for 3-inch webbing/seat clearance. Even more than three inches may be needed to insure that automatic belts are in fact automatic and convenient (I am enclosing a past agency interpretation on this subject). You should consider these points when making a final decision concerning this type belt design.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that this letter only represents the agency's opinion based on the brief examination of the belt system during our recent meeting. It is up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and to certify that compliance.

Thank you for bringing this prototype automatic belt system to the agency for inspection.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: nht80-3.24

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc., Dietmar K. Haenchen, Administrator, Vehicle Regulations

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Administrator Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren, Michigan 48092

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1980, asking for information of your interpretation of Section 4.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section states that lamps "shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle ... that is not designed to be removed except for repair." It is your belief that this section would allow a configuration in which back-up lamps and license plate lamps could be mounted on the deck lid.

We concur with this interpretation. The requirement for rigidity is meant to insure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on hinges or flexible mud flamps when the vehicle is in motion. The passenger cars you propose to manufacture will normally be operated with the deck lid closed and the lamps in full view on a rigid part of the vehicle as the standard requires. However, placement of a stop lamp and taillamp on a deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance, and hence a safety related defect requiring notification and remedy.

Sincerely

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 April 1980

CERTIFIED MAIL

Subject: Interpretation - FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Volkswagen requests your concurrence of our interpretation of FMVSS 108; lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment as it applies to the mounting of lamps as specified in section S4.3.

Subsection S4.3.1 states ...each lamp, reflective device, and item of associated equipment shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle other than glazing that is not designed to be removed except for repair,...

It is Volkswagen's opinion that the above requirement would not preclude the mounting of lamps on movable flaps such as a deck lid since the deck lid is a rigid structure removed only for repair. With this rationale, present planning by Audi NSU Auto Union is to incorporate the backup lamps and license plate lamps into the deck lid of several future models (see attached sketch).

Marx Elliott of the NHTSA in a phone conversation with a member of my staff, indicated that he thought Volkswagen's interpretation was correct, however, he recommended that we obtain a interpretation from your office.

Response to this request at your earliest convenience will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen

Encl.

ID: nht80-3.25

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

COPYEE: R. McCUTCHEON -- ASST. POSTMASTER GEN., U.S. POSTAL SERV.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your June 5, 1980, letter to this office, you indicated that Michelin would like to equip mail vans with passenger car tires. Since the mail vans will be restricted to speeds of 50 miles per hour and less, you believe that it would be permissible to load the tires above the maximum load indicated on the tires, pursuant to the provisions of Standard 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). This assumption is accurate.

Section S5 of Standard No. 120 sets forth two basic safety requirements which new motor vehicles other than passenger cars must meet, including a mail van. Paragraph S5.1.1 requires these vehicles to be equipped with tires which meet the requirements of Standard 109 or Standard 119. From your characterization of the tires as passenger car tires, I assume that you will be providing tires which meet the requirements of Standard 109.

The second general requirement, contained in paragraph S5.1.2, is that the sum of the maximum load ratings of the tires fitted to an axle shall be not less than the gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of the axle system, as specified on the vehicle's certification required by 49 CFR Part 567. As you implied in your letter, this requirement of S5.1.2 does not apply to vehicles which have a speed attainable in 2 miles of 50 miles per hour or less. This exception was intended to apply only to vehicles such as mobile cranes, which do not have the capability to reach speeds greater than 50 miles per hour. However, the language inadvertently is so broad that it encompasses vehicles which have their speed capabilities restrained by devices like governors and, thus, would apply to the mail vans you describe.

There are two comments I would like to make on this unintended loophole. One is that we will strictly enforce the 50 mile per hour limitation. If any of the mail vans can attain speeds over 50 miles per hour, that van will be in violation of Standard 120 if the tires you describe are used. Additionally, we are going to examine whether it is necessary to amend Standard 120 to close this loophole.

The second comment is a recommendation that you fit the mail vans with tires whose labeled maximum loads are at least equal to the GAWR of the axle on which they are mounted. The Tire & Rim Association allows a 9 percent increase in the load over the maximum load labeled on the tires when the speed range is restricted to 50 miles per hour (1979 Yearbook of the Tire & Rim Association, at 2-03). This 9 percent increase in load carrying capacity is calculated for truck tires. When using passenger car tires on the mail vans you have described, safety concerns mandate that the load carrying capacity of the tires be reduced by 10 percent, to ensure that the lighter duty passenger car tires can safely perform the heavier duty work that is routine for vehicles like mail vans. Indeed, if the vehicles were not speed restricted, S5.1.2 of Standard 120 would require this 10 percent reduction to be made for the passenger car tires.

If Michelin follows the course of prudence, it should calculate the maximum load carrying capacity of the tires with a 9 percent increase allowed for the speed restriction. Then this maximum load must be reduced by 10 percent to allow for the use of passenger car tires. The net result of this increase and decrease would be that the maximum load which the passenger car tires you describe could safely carry is approximately the maximum load labeled on the tires, because the increase and decrease will cancel each other out.

I trust that Michelin Tire Corporation, which has a very good record of concern for tire safety, will not equip a motor vehicle with potentially unsafe tires, even if a loophole in Federal regulations might inadvertently permit it to do so.

SINCERELY,

REF: D.O.T. MISC.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION - Technical Group

JUNE 5, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

We are proposing the use of a passenger tire on an electric mail van being produced for the U.S. postal service.

The van is speed restricted to 50 mph, therefore, we can allow an increase in load carrying capacity over and above that indicated on the tire sidewall.

If the van is considered "a vehicle other than a passenger car" it would fall under the requirements of FMVSS 119 and 120 rather than FMVSS 109 and 110 and the increase in load carrying capacity would be in accordance with FMVSS 119 and 120.

Please advise if our proposed solution is in conformance with NHTSA requirements.

The scheduling of this program is extremely tight and your prompt reply would be appreciated.

John B. White Engineering Manager Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht80-3.26

DATE: 07/30/80

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 09/15/88 TO M. IWASE FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 02/22/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES' FROM M. IWASE RE INSTALLATION OF TAIL AND STOP LAMP ONTO MOVING VEHICLE PART

TEXT: Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This is in reply to your letter of April 2, 1980, asking for information of your interpretation of Section 4.2.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

This section states that lamps "shall be securely mounted on a rigid part of the vehicle ... that is not designed to be removed except for repair." It is your belief that this section would allow a configuration in which back-up lamps and license plate lamps could be mounted on the deck lid.

We concur with this interpretation. The requirement for rigidity is meant to insure that lamps and reflectors do not sway in the wind on hinges or flexible mud flamps when the vehicle is in motion. The passenger cars you propose to manufacture will normally be operated with the deck lid closed and the lamps in full view on a rigid part of the vehicle as the standard requires. However, placement of a stop lamp and taillamp on a deck lid could be viewed as a defect in performance, and hence a safety related defect requiring notification and remedy.

Sincerely

ID: nht80-3.27

DATE: 07/31/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Rover Triumph Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 31 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Graham Gardner Manager, Engineering Liaison Jaguar Rover Triumph Inc. 500 Willow Tree Road Leonia, New Jersey 07605

Dear Mr. Gardner:

This responds to your letter of March 3, 1980, requesting an interpretation concerning the proper designated seating capacity for the rear seat in the Jaguar XJS coupe. You ask whether the design would be permitted to have only two "designated seating positions."

The definition of "designated seating position" specifies that any position likely to be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion will be considered a designated seating position. Further, any bench seat 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.

Your diagrams indicate that the rear seat in the Jaguar XJS has 44.25 inches of hip room. Since the stationary armrests appear to run the length of the seat, both technically and practically speaking the hip room measurement is substantially below the 50 inch caveat in the definition. This alone would probably qualify the seat as having only two designated seating positions. Moreover, the rear seat has stiff inboard seat belt receptacles on the raised contour at the center of the seat expanse which should serve as an impediment to use of that position. Given this obstruction, the seat configuration, and the limited amount of hip room, it is the agency's opinion that the rear seat of the Jaguar XJS coupe qualifies as having only two designated seating positions.

Please note that this letter 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.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 2, 1980

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Jaguar Rover Triumph hereby requests a confirmation of its interpretation of the designated seating position definition contained in 49 CFR 571.3 to the effect that it would require two such seating positions in the rear seat of the Jaguar XJS coupe.

The rear seat width of this vehicle, a two-door coupe with a deeply contoured rear seat, is 44.25-inches, measured in accordance with SAE J1100(a). This 44.25-inch dimension includes the transmission tunnel, which protrudes into the seating area.

The enclosed engineering drawings and sales brochure clearly demonstrate Jaguar's intention that the rear seat be limited to two designated seating positions. The engineering drawings graphically illustrate the division of the rear seat into two seating areas by the high transmission tunnel trim panel. The 7th page of the brochure depicts this high contour, as well as the location of the inboard seat belt receptacles, which are adjacent to one another and permanently affixed to the center of the transmission tunnel. Not only would a passenger attempting to sit in the center of this seat be forced to sit upon this raised tunnel (with a corresponding reduction in available head room), but he would have to sit directly upon these stiff seat belt receptacles.

Although Jaguar Rover Triumph firmly believes there is no question about the number of required designated seating positions in the rear of the XJS coupe, it feels the regulation is sufficiently subjective to require the seeking of this interpretation.

Yours faithfully,

JAGUAR ROVER TRIUMPH INC,

Graham Gardner Manager, Engineering Liaison

GG/bb enclosures (2)