ID: nht73-3.29

DATE: 02/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 28, 1972, concerning the application of Standard 124, "Accelerator Control Systems", to a particular Nissan design.

Prior to our receipt of your letter, Nissan representatives met with representatives from our Office of Operating Systems. At this meeting, Nissan representatives explained their questions and left a carburetor with NHTSA staff engineers as an aid to understanding the matters in question. Your company's concern is with the failure of a spring, designated as spring C, which in the event of severance or disconnection, would allow the secondary throttle plate to stay open slightly and thereby increase normal idle speed by approximately 300 rpm. Since spring C only returns the secondary throttle plate to idle position, spring C could not be considered as a return energy source under S5.1 of the standard, and, the failure of Spring C would not fall under the same requirements as a failure of either A or B. Further, spring C is not a part of the "driver-operated accelerator control system" but is part of the "fuel metering device", and as such, severance or disconnection of spring C would not fall within the purview of S5.2.

You also presented a drawing of an accelerator control system and asked which point of severance or disconnection along the system is appropriate when conducting tests for the standard. Since the standard requires that the return to idle time must be met when "any one component of the accelerator control system disconnected or severed", you ask if this would apply to bolts holding together mounting brackets, or just those components which move in relation to foot-pedal actuation. The components intended to be tested under severance or disconnection in the standard are those which are strictly defined in S4.1. "Driver-operated accelerator control system". Accordingly, those components which move in accomplishing the regulation of engine speed would be tested, while fixed parts such as brackets and bolts depicted by the drawing you submitted would not be tested.

The carburetor your representatives left with us is being returned to Nissan under separate cover. Your letter and the attached photographs of the carburetor with labeled springs will be placed in Docket 69-20.

ID: nht73-3.3

DATE: 11/27/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 23, 1973, concerning the installation of seat belts and seat belt anchorages for passenger seats in school buses. The belts would be used to assist handicapped passengers in remaining seated while the bus is in motion.

Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, which regulates the strength of seat belt anchorages, applies only to the driver's seat in a bus. The passengers' seats are not covered by the standard. As a result, an anchorage provided at a passenger seat in a bus does not have to meet the requirements of Standard No. 210.

If you plan to acquire conventional automotive seat belts for use in the buses, you will find that all belts must be certified to Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, by the belt manufacturer. Because of this the belt should not be a problem for you.

We would encourage you to construct the belt anchorages so that they have the capacity to protect the passengers in sudden stops or crashes, as well as to keep them in the seat during normal service. However, the anchorage standard does not have to be met for these seats and will not be an impediment to fulfilling your customers' orders for anchorage-equipped seats.

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

October 23, 1973

Richard Dyson Assistant Chief Counsel NHTSA

Recent advertisements tell us that court decisions have held that it is a right of every child, regardless of physical or mental handicaps, to have a publicly financed education. In addition to this, there seems to be increased awareness of the special needs of handicapped children.

For these reasons, the usage of, and demand for special vehicles to transport handicapped children to and from school has increased in the past few years. With this increased usage, the problem of "passenger containment" during transportation has become more acute. Typical vehicles are used to transport both wheechair-confined passengers and other passengers who are ambulatory when aided, but yet have reduced muscular control. The problem we wish to address deals with the containment of these latter passengers in regular school-bus type seats during normal vehicle operation.

We have received several requests to install seatbelts in these special vehicles - not to mitigate the results of any accident - but rather to contain passengers during normal vehicle operation. Heretofore, we have declined such requests because our interpretation of FMVSS 209, S2 and S3 indicates that any such belts would have to meet the requirements of FMVSS 209 and FMVSS 210 even though seat belts are not now required for bus passenger seats.

We have not attempted to build seats with belts that meet these regulations because:

2

1. Anchoring (3) belts to the seat frame would require the frame to withstand a 15,000 lb. load as specified by FMVSS 210, S5.1. Current seats cannot withstand this loading and the market does not warrant the cost of a totally redesigned and re-tooled seat for handicapped passengers.

2. Anchoring belts to the floor would inhibit wheelchair movement within the vehicle, would present unacceptable tripping hazards to already handicapped children and is not acceptable to the purchasers and users of these special vehicles.

However, demand for occupant containment devices has increased to the point where some states are requiring them in their specifications. For example, the latest specification from Pennsylvania reads:

"Seat frames shall be equipped with rings or other devices to support pupils. This is not a seat belt or harness intended to mitigate the result to traffic accidents."

Therefore, we would like to propose that seatbelts which do not meet the full anchorage strength requirement of FMVSS 210 be allowed in special vehicles to transport handicapped children. Clearly these devices would add to passenger protection in all modes of operation.

Because of the urgency of this matter, we would appreciate an early response. Thank you.

W. G. Milby Project Engineer

cc: Dave Phelps Jim Moorman John Maddox

ID: nht73-3.30

DATE: 02/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Canadian Pittsburgh Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 22, 1972, which was forwarded to us by the Department of Transport of Canada, requesting assignment of a manufacturer's code number for glazing materials you manufacturer.

In your letter you indicate that the glazing in question is purchased in stock sheets, and then out to the customer's requirements. The assignment of Code number is limited to what NHTSA has called "prime glazing material manufacturers" and this group includes only those who "fabricate, lauinate, or tamper the glazing material." As your function appears to be only that of cutting the material to size, we would not consider you, at least with respect to this material, to be a prime glazing material manufacturer. Consequently, a code number assignment would be improper. The labeling requirements which you would be subject to, if this glazing as cut by you is to be imported into the United States, are those requirements specified in S6.4 and S6.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 203, copy enclosed.

ID: nht73-3.31

DATE: 02/20/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Lectron Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 29, 1973, concerning your safety belt interlock system.

Paragraph S7.4.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that the belt system at each occupied seating position be operated after the occupant is seated in order to start the engine. It is our opinion that a system such as yours, which senses whether the safety belt is properly buckled around the occupant before allowing the engine to start, would meet the above requirements and could be used under the option described in S4.1.2.3.

ID: nht73-3.32

DATE: 02/20/73

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

TO: Truck Body and Equipment Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 1973, concerning the application of Standard No. 124, "Accelerator Control Systems", to auxiliary throttles mounted inside or outside of the cab and used exclusively while the vehicle is in a stationary position to insure proper engine speed for the operation of pumps, elevating platforms, and similar equipment. Since the definition of "idle position" was amended to provide for the use of throttle positioners in 37 F.R. 20035 (September 23, 1972), the auxiliary throttles described are not subject to the requirements of the standard.

ID: nht73-3.33

DATE: 02/22/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; C. A. Baker for E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Morino and Moore

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 1 to Mr. B.M. Crittenden, Regional Administrator, concerning emergency flashers.

Effective January 1, 1969, all new automobiles were required to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," which in turn required the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit to meet Society of Automotive Engineers Standard J910, January 1966. Prior to January 1, 1969, automobile were required to meet the standards and regulations of the individual States. Since New York required hazard warning signals (4-way flashers) in 1966, most automobiles manufactured for sale throughout the United States were similarly equipped.

SAE J910 did not contain requirements relating the activation of the signal to the position or rotation of the steering wheel. Several States prohibited the operation of the subject signal on a moving vehicle; therefore, on many cars, this signal was cancelled by the rotation of the steering wheel, and consequently could not be activated even with the vehicle stopped with the steering wheel in certain positions.

We are unaware of similar complaints on the activation of the hazard warning signals.

ID: nht73-3.34

DATE: 02/27/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Fildew; Gilbridge; Miller & Todd

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 14, 1973, in which you asked about the responsibilities with respect to the motor vehicle safety standards of an automobile dealer who sends a new vehicle to a specialty manufacturer for modifications. You asked whether the dealer must file reports as a final-stage manufacturer, or ascertain whether the specialty manufacturer has filed reports or certified the vehicle.

The final-stage manufacturer in the case you describe is the specialty manufacturer, and all the responsibilities that pertain to that category lie with him, not the dealer. There is also no obligation for the dealer to ascertain that the specialty manufacturer has filed reports.

The answer with respect to the dealer ascertaining that the final-stage manufacturer has certified the vehicle is somewhat less clear. There is no direct responsibility for this; a failure of the final-stage manufacturer to certify would not itself bring down any penalties on the dealer. However, the certification is designed to protect the dealer, in cases of nonconformity with the standards of which the dealer does not have actual knowledge. (See sections 108(b)(2) and 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2), 1403.) To put it negatively, if the vehicle were completed in violation of applicable standards and it were not certified, a dealer might be considered to have sold a nonconforming vehicle without the exercise of due care, in violation of the Act. The question is further complicated by the fact that not all alterations would rise to the level of manufacturing (addition of trailer hitches probably would not, for example), and these minor

changes would not require additional certification by anyone. In sum, although there is no direct legal obligation for the dealer to see that there is a certification where there are major alterations, it is a very good idea, for his own protection.

The regulations on this subject are codified in Parts 567 and 568 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations. The October 1, 1972 edition of that title is current with respect to those parts. We do have a proposal outstanding to make some amendments regarding the certification of altered vehicles (37 FR 22800, October 25, 1972), and an amended rule may be issued in the near future.

ID: nht73-3.35

DATE: 03/01/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: E.T.R.T.O.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your submission No. 65/109 of January 23, 1973, petitioning that temporary exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 be provided for European tire manufacturers who manufacture high speed tires. Your petition points out that Standard No. 109 does not allow the manufacture of high speed tires designed to be inflated to relatively high inflation pressures, but which do not have commensurate load-carrying ability at those pressures. You indicate that such tires are commonly used in Europe for high speed passenger cars, and have not produced safety problems.

The temporary exemption regulations (49 CFR 555, copy enclosed), in accordance with the statutory authority under which they were issued (P.L. 92-548), apply only to manufacturers of motor vehicles. They do not apply to manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment, and the relief which they provide is accordingly not available to tire manufacturers.

The NHTSA is of the opinion that the requirements of Standard No. 109, emphasizing the load-carrying as well as the high speed capability of passenger car tires, should be suited to driving conditions which predominate in the United States. Despite the facts, as you mention, that it is possible for motorists to exceed posted speed limits, and that areas do exist where speed limits are not posted, the NHTSA believes the high speed requirements of Standard No. 109 are sufficient to guard against tire failures under these conditions. At the same time, the NHTSA will consider petitions to amend Standard No. 109, submitted pursuant to NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR 553.31, .33), and E.T.R.T.O. is free to petition to amend the standard to include requirements for European-type high speed tires. Your petition should contain full supporting data for the amendments requested. We would expect you as well to include possible performance requirements for such tires.

You refer briefly in your letter to the performance of these tires when tested pursuant to the planned Uniform Tire Quality Grading regulation. The NHTSA plans to publish in the very near future a revised notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this regulation, and we will be pleased to receive your comments to that proposal when it is published.

ID: nht73-3.36

DATE: 03/02/73

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

TO: Semperit of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1973, inquiring whether size designations "225/70SR14 replaces G70SR14", and "215/70SR15 replaces F70SR15" etc., may be used under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 provides for the labeling of "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." The NHTSA has taken the position that this requirement does not prohibit the labeling of replacement sizes when the replaced size is in fact being superseded by the replacement size.

Because your proposed label contains both a metric and an inch size designation, however, it is not clear whether these size designations are intended as "equivalent" or "replacement" sizes. If you intend the former size to supersede the latter, your use of "replaces" between the two size designations is consistent with Standard No. 109. If your intention is to label equivalent size designations, however, the use of "replaces" is inappropriate One way in which equivalency may be appropriately shown is to place the inch size designation in a parenthesis () immediately following the metric size designation.

One last point is that the size designations listed in the Appendix of Standard No. 109 for 70 Series radial ply tires differ from those specified in your letter. Table I-G, which lists this tire type, specifies size designations in which the second letter is an "R". Thus, the size designations which you submit should have read GR70SR14 and FR70SR15. Other size designations of this tire type should be identified accordingly.

ID: nht73-3.37

DATE: 03/02/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Chesapeake Maring Products

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 5, 1973, in which you suggested, with reference to a previous interpretation, that boat trailer assemblers be allowed to use the "altering distributor" certification of 49 CFR @ 567.6, rather than certifying the vehicle as the manufacturer under @ 567.4.

The altering distributor label was not designed to deal with assemblers of vehicles, but with persons who alter vehicles that have already been completed and assembled. A basic prerequisite to its use is that there be a vehicle that already has been certified. I take it that your suggestion really amounts to requiring the supplier of the unassembled parts to certify the vehicle.

We are unwilling to do this on the basis of our present information. It is true that a boat trailer is among the simplest vehicles on the road, but considering vehicles generally, we must consider a vehicle as a functioning whole, not as a group of parts. There may easily be problems caused by the way in which it is assembled, and we do not consider it reasonable to require a manufacturer of parts, against his will, to take responsibility for the final assembly. Although it is conceivable that such a scheme could work with very simple vehicles, it certainly could cause large problems with more complex ones.

We permit the unassembled parts manufacturer to certify if he wishes. Furthermore, the person who assembles the vehicle can require a written commercial warrantly that

the vehicle will conform if properly assembled, which will protect him in certifying the vehicle. I recommend one of these courses of action as a matter of good business practice.

If the unassembled parts manufacturer does certify the package in accordance with @ 567.4 (g)(1)(ii), then it would be permissible for a distributor to use @ 567.6 where he deviates from the certifier's instructions.