ID: nht76-4.46

DATE: 04/21/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 15, 1976, question whether a passenger car is considered a convertible for purposes of compliance with motor vehicle safety standards if its roof includes a "sun roof" or has two removable sections fitted into the roof over the outboard front designated seating positions in such a fashion that they do not join each other (Hurst Hatch Roof). You also request confirmation that convertibles are excluded from the requirements of Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and are required to meet S4.1.2.3.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

The answer to your first question is no. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Passenger cars equipped with a "sun roof" or a "Hurst Hatch Roof" do not qualify as convertible, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location.

With regard to your other question, passenger cars manufactured from September 1, 1973, to August 31, 1976, inclusive, are required to meet one of three options specified in Standard No. 208. If a manufacturer chooses to meet the third option listed (S4.1.2.3), separate requirements are specified for convertibles in S4.1.2.3.2. Convertibles are excluded from Standard No. 216, although a manufacturer may choose to meet the standard in place of certain requirements of Standard No. 208 that are not presently mandatory.

YOURS TRULY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

March 15, 1976

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Hurst Hatch Roof and FMVSS No. 216

I would like to take this opportunity to ask you a few questions regarding your interpretation of the word "Convertible", which can be seen in FMVSS No. 216, S3.

In the recent model cars, there have been passenger cars equipped with a new type of roof called "Hurst Hatch Roof", which is shown in the picture in the attachment to this letter (No.1). The structure of the Hurst Hatch Roof Body is completely different from the conventional sun roof, which is also shown in the attachment (No.2). It seems to show a different performance if tested to FMVSS No. 216.

My questions are as follows:

1) Is the Hurst Hatch Roof car defined as a convertible?

2) Is the conventional sun roof car defined as a convertible?

3) If the convertibles are manufactured in the production line, those cars do not have to comply with FMVSS No. 216. However, they have to meet the requirement of S4.1.2.3.2 of FMVSS No.208. Is my understanding correct?

It would be greatly appreciated if your clear interpretation would be given to me by letter as soon as possible.

Naoyoshi Suzuki Staff, Safety

ATTACHMENT

(NO.1)

(NO. 2)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-4.43

DATE: August 10, 1992

FROM: Dan Trexler -- Specifications Engineer, Thomas Built Buses, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Ron Holzhauser; Fred Huston; Ron Marion

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/2/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Dan Trexler (A-40; Std. 131) and letter dated 9/14/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Lyle Walheim (Std. 131)

TEXT:

This letter is to formally request an interpretation of certain portions of FMVSS 131, School Bus Pedestrian Safety Devices.

It has come to our attention that there is some confusion and possible misinterpretation of the stop arm's activation and the manual override device requirements and allowances contained within 131.

Upon reading the requirement for the stop arm's "manner of activation" specified in section S5.5 of 131, it seems that it is connected to just the activation of the red signal lamps of FMVSS 108. Based on this assumption our first question is: 1. On buses with just a four light system (as specified in S5.1.4(a) of FMVSS 108), is the stop arm required to extend every time the signal lamps are activated?

On the other hand, when considering an eight light system (as specified in S5.1.4(b) of FMVSS 108) the activation of the stop arm seems to be connected to not only the activation of the red signal lamps but also the prerequisite opening of the bus entrance door as specified S5.1.4(b)(ii). This leads to our second question: 2. On buses with an eight light system (as specified in S5.1.4(b) of FMVSS 108), is the stop arm required to extend only after the red signal lamps have been activated by the opening of the bus entrance door? Or is the stop arm required to extend at any time the red signal lamps are activated?

Our final area of confusion concerns the override device. Our third question is: 3. Can a device be used that is capable of remaining in the "OVERRIDE" or "ON" position with only a one-time activation by the driver?

An example of this would be a toggle or rocker switch on the dash or switch cabinet that could be moved to the "OVERRIDE" or "ON" position, by the driver, and left in that position. Various attributes of this system would include an audible signal, of course, that would automatically sound for at least 60 seconds and automatically recycle each time the service door was opened, with the engine running. Activation of the audible signal would be triggered by the activation of the red signal lamps as specified in S5.1.4 of FMVSS 108. Upon deactivation of the override switch, the stop arm would be deployed, if the signal lamps are still activated.

The key to this final question is the type of switch used for the override and if it is acceptable to use a switch that can remain in the "ON"

position as opposed to one that has to be "re-activated" each time the override is desired or a switch that has to be held manually in the "OVERRIDE" mode by the driver.

We appreciate your consideration of these problems and look forward to your response.

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: Carlsson.1

Mr. Erik Carlsson
A & C Automotive consulting
Chester, NJ 07930-2637

Dear Mr. Carlsson:

This responds to your august 28, 2004, and september 4, 2004, letters in which you seek clarification as to whether a three-wheeled vehicle equipped with a "dump basket" would be classified as a truck or a motorcycle under our federal motor vehicle safety standards (fmvsss).Your letter stated that this vehicle is intended for on-road application, and you expressed your belief that the vehicle is "obviously designed for transport of cargo, specifically (household) garbage". Your letter also asked questions about the impact of the vehicles classification on certain requirements under fmvss no. 122, motorcycle brake systems, and fmvss no. 102, transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect.We are pleased to have the opportunity to answer your questions related to our regulations.

By way of background, the national highway traffic safety administration (nhtsa) is authorized to issue fmvsss that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment.If a manufacturer determines that its product is covered by one or more of our safety standards, it must certify compliance of the product with all applicable fmvsss prior to offering such product for sale.

Pursuant to the definition of "motorcycle" set forth in 49 cfr 571.3, all three-wheeled motor vehicles are classified as motorcycles, regardless of their nature.Tthe pertinent portion of that section reads as follows:

Motorcycle means 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.

Any three-wheeled vehicle that conforms to the above definition must meet all standards applicable to motorcycles.

Because the vehicle in question appears to conform to the definition of a "motorcycle" under our regulations, we believe that it would be classified as a motorcycle and would be subject to all fmvsss applicable to motorcycles.We note that this definition of "motorcycle" is broader in scope than the everyday usage of that term.Accordingly, it would be expected to cover a variety of vehicle designs that look and are employed differently.

As your letter suggests, the classification of a vehicle is important because it affects the fmvsss with which the vehicle must comply.Once classified as a motorcycle, we look to the fmvsss to determine requirements applicable to the vehicle in question.In terms of the specific safety standards mentioned in your letter, the requirements of fmvss no. 102 would not apply, because that standard is limited to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.However, the vehicle would need to comply with the requirements of fmvss no. 122, including those in paragraph s6.1 specifying that the vehicle be tested at its unloaded vehicle weight plus 200 pounds.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact eric stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:571
d.10/26/04

ID: 000899_Kagimoto_antipinch

Ms. Reiko Kagimoto
Tokai Rika Co., Ltd.
260, Toyota 3-chrome, Oguchi-cho,
Niwa-gun, Aichi-ken, 480-0195
JAPAN




Dear Ms. Kagimoto:

This responds to your e-mail inquiry asking several questions about an "anti-pinch" requirement (i.e., an automatic reversal requirement) for power side sliding doors. Your questions are restated below, with our answers.

Question 1: FMVSS No. 118 specifies the automatic reversal requirement for [some] power windows, partitions, and roof panel systems. Are sliding doors excluded from the requirement even if they have an automatic reversal system?

Answer: Yes, sliding doors are excluded from FMVSS No. 118 automatic reversal requirements even if they have an automatic reversal system.

Question 2: Does NHTSA have any plan to add sliding doors to the automatic reversal requirement of FMVSS No. 118 in the near future?

Answer: NHTSA does not have any plan at this time to require an automatic reversal requirement for power side sliding doors. However, we are instituting a new database that will track injuries and fatalities associated with motor vehicle events that do not involve crashes. The database will include power window and power door injuries and fatalities. We could amend the FMVSSs in the future if the new database indicates a safety need to do so.

Question 3: Considering the safety of vehicle occupants, should we advise our engineers to design the anti-pinch feature of their sliding doors to comply with the FMVSS No. 118 automatic reversal requirement?

Answer: NHTSA does not have any recommendations as to whether the sliding doors should meet the FMVSS No. 118 automatic reversal requirement.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:118#206
d.4/7/06

ID: 04-007232-2drn

Ms. Doris Showalter
Senior Product Manager
Eaton Corporation
Hydraulic Power Fluid Division
1660 Indian Wood Circle
Maumee, OH 43537

Dear Ms. Showalter:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106).You asked about the responsibilities of distributors of your brake hose parts that assemble the parts into an air brake hose assembly.

I note that in your requests you make several references to DOT approval of brake hose products. However, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable requirements.

FMVSS No. 106 applies to brake hoses, brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings, and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country.

The various requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose fittings are set forth in S7 of FMVSS No. 106.

In a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you asked whether a distributor making an assembly would be included in the definition of manufacturer at S7.2.3(b) of FMVSS No. 106. The answer is yes. In the situation where a distributor of brake hose parts assembles them into an air brake hose assembly, the distributor would be the manufacturer of the assembly. I note that the term manufacturer is defined at 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5)(A) as a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment.

You also state that you have heard that screw together fittings, often called 100R5 style reusable fittings, are no longer acceptable and ask if this is true.NHTSA understands that this style of fitting and air brake hose meets the requirements for Type AII of Table III of FMVSS No. 106 for air brake hoses assembled with reusable fittings.If this is true, and as long as the screw together fittings can meet all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 106, they are permissible.

In closing, we note that on December 20, 2004 (69 FR 76298), NHTSA issued in the Federal Register, a final rule updating FMVSS No. 106, including the requirements for air brake hose, brake hose assemblies, and brake hose end fittings.The final rule will be effective December 20, 2006. Brake hose manufacturers may comply with the new requirements beginning on February 18, 2005, if they so choose.

I hope this information is helpful.In addition to the above, I am also enclosing an information sheet for new manufacturers that should address your questions regarding certification requirements. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:106
d.1/7/05

ID: 05-006004_Dec-12-2005drn

Thomas D. Turner, Manager
Engineering Services
Blue Bird
402 Blue Bird Boulevard
Fort Valley, GA 31030




Dear Mr. Turner:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of the head impact zone requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection, applying to small school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less). You ask how we position the drivers seat back when the school bus passenger head protection zone specified in the standard might include some areas in the drivers seating position. You suggest that the drivers seat back should be adjusted to its most upright position. It is our opinion that the school bus must meet impact zone requirements when the drivers seat back is in any position, not just the most upright position.

The test conditions for the head impact protection and other requirements of FMVSS No. 222 are specified in S6 of the standard. For a school bus with a GVWR of 4,536 kg or less, the test conditions apply when testing "all seating positions other than the drivers seat". Although S6.4 specifies that "If adjustable, a seat back is adjustable to its most upright position," that provision applies only to the adjustment of passenger seat backs.

S5. (b) of FMVSS No. 222 specifies that small school buses (school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg or less) must meet certain requirements of the standard "at all seating positions other than the drivers seat," including the requirements of S5.3, "Impact zone requirements".As you note in your letter, NHTSAs longstanding position has been that the head protection zone requirements extend to all contactable surfaces in the zone, including the drivers seat. (March 27, 1979, letter to Blue Bird Body Company; May 11, 1977, letter to Wayne Corporation.) To ensure that head protection is provided to passengers seated behind the driver regardless of how the driver positions his or her seat, in conducting the head impact protection test we will not limit the adjustment of the drivers seat back only to the most upright position. The agency will test the school bus to the head protection zone requirements with the drivers seat back adjusted to any upright or reclined position to which the seat can be adjusted.

In your letter, you state that the drivers seat for FMVSS No. 222 testing should be positioned as in other crashworthiness FMVSSs that specify that the drivers seat is tested in its nominal design driving position. Unlike the other crashworthiness standards you mention, FMVSS No. 222s protections extend to passengers rearward of the driver. FMVSS No. 222 has to ensure that reclining the drivers seat back does not negate or reduce the protection provided to those passengers.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:222
d.1/24/06

ID: nht88-1.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Jaguar Cars, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

C.D. Black, Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance Product Development 600 Willow Tree Road Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

This is in reply to your letters of June 8 and October 17, 1987, with respect to an electrically-operated headlamp leveling system that Jaguar intends to offer on passenger cars beginning with the 1989 model year. Such a device is required by EEC regulat ions. You have informed us that the system does not allow lamps to be adjusted above the "zero" position, only downward to compensate for rear end loading of the vehicle. There is no provision for automatic return to the "zero" position when the engine i s turned off. Further, there will be no indication to the driver from the vehicle instrumentation that re-aim is necessary when the headlamps are adjusted downward. You have concluded, for the six reasons given in your letter of June 8 that "no aspect of FMVSS 108 . . . is contravened by this proposed installation."

The sole restriction that Standard No. 108 imposes upon an item of motor vehicle equipment not covered by the standard but which a manufacturer wishes to add to a vehicle as original equipment is that it not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equip ment that the standard requires (S4.1.3). If a manufacturer concludes that the unrequired equipment would not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment, it may certify that the vehicle complies with Standard No. 108. Based on our unders tanding of your system, it does not appear to impair the effectiveness of the required equipment. However, we urge you to consider the possible consequences if the driver forgets to return the system to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustme nt positions. These possibilities are a concern because the system does not automatically return to that position, and no warning is provided to the driver that the headlamps are not in their original design position. On the other-hand, if properly used, the system could enhance headlighting effectiveness by ensuring that the headlamp provides the same lighting performance under all conditions of vehicle load.

We hope the information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 8, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street SW Washington, D.C. 20590

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 108 DRIVER ADJUSTMENT OF PASSENGER CAR HEADLAMPS

Dear Ms. Jones:

Jaguar Cars Ltd. of Coventry, England, manufactures passenger cars for worldwide markets. For UK and European road vehicles of all types it will be required, by EEC Directive 76/756 (as amended) Paragraph 4.2.6, to fit a system for maintaining headlamp d ip beam (passing beam) vertical alignment. If this is not achieved by power operated suspension levelling, then either an automatic lamp-levelling system or a control operable from the driving seat must be provided.

Jaguar will fit an electrically operated lamp-levelling system, operable from the drivers seat, to the XJ-S model range on all cars for the United Kingdom and for Europe from Job 1 1989 model year. Jaguar would like to fit this system to cars supplied fo r the USA market.

Jaguar believes that this will not contravene or compromise any aspect of compliance with FMVSS 108 for the following reasons:

1. In a front-engine passenger car, the only adjustment required after the initial aim in the "driver only" condition is downward. (This may not be valid for rear engine cars or for heavy trucks).

2. The lamps will be compatible with the use of mechanical aimers as defined in FMVSS 108 and the sub-referenced SAE J.602. New semi-sealed light units for the USA models will conform with all applicable requirements of FMVSS 108. (Distinct conditions of light units will be used for U.S. and for Europe but they will be designed to fit commonised mountings and therefore will enable use to be made of the lamp levelling feature.)

3. The lamp mounting will be designed to meet the torque deflection test of SAE J.580.

4. A mechanical adjustment facility for manufacturing tolerances and an initial alignment will be fitted to each lamp and will be operable in the manner required by SAE J.580.

5. Subsequent to the initial alignment as defined in lighting inspection code SAE J.599, the only adjustment operable from the driving seat will be downward. Because the lamp provides both passing and driving beams this will enable the driver to adjust t he beams downward if necessitated by heavy rear seat, trunk, or trailer hitch loading. It is impossible to adjust the beams to a higher position than the datum setting by the operation of the control from the drivers seat.

Even if the driver does not use the control under the conditions outlined above, then the dazzle problem would never be worse than that created by conventionally mounted lamps. What the lamp levelling system would provide is the opportunity to eliminate dazzle that would otherwise occur.

6. Jaguar will explain in the owner literature the correct use of the control by the driver. Jaguar will also instruct dealers and servicing outlets of the need to zero the drivers control before checking or adjusting beam alignment.

For the foregoing reasons, Jaguar believe that no aspect of FMVSS 108 or the subreferenced SAE standards is contravened by this proposed installation. However, because of design and manufacturing leadtimes we request your confirmation that our interpreta tion is correct.

We believe we have explained all relevant features of the system but if further information or clarification is required, please contact me by telephone.

Sincerely,

C.D. Black CDB:as Engineering Manager Legislation, Compliance, Product Development

ID: 86-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Koji Tokunaga

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering Isuzu Motors America, Inc. 21415 Civic Center Drive Southfield, MI 48076-3969

Dear Mr. Tokunaga:

Thank you for your letter of December 19, 1985, to former Chief Counsel Prank Berndt, asking several questions about how the requirements of Standards No. 207, Seating Systems, 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and 210, Seat Belt Assembly Achorages, apply to an airsuspension truck seat equipped with a safety belt and a tether belt. The diagrams you enclosed with your letter show that one end of the tether belt is connected to the floor behind the seat and the other end is connected to the frame of the air suspension seat. The safety belt is also connected to the frame of the seat. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked about which portion of the system is considered the safety belt anchorage for the purpose of Standard No. 210. S3 of the standard defines the term "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." Since, according to the diagram enclosed with your letter, the safety belt is directly attached to the seat, we would consider the attachment point on the seat to be the anchorage. It is that attachment point that transfers the seat belt load to the vehicle structure. Although not specifically discussed in your letter, we believe that the primary purpose of the tether belt is to hold the seat in position during a crash rather than to transfer the safety belt loads to the vehicle structure.

You next asked whether S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, would apply to the seat since the safety belt is secured to the seat. The answer is yes, S4.2(c) would apply. S4.2(c) sets requirements for any seat in which "a seat belt assembly is attached to the seat."

In your third question, you asked whether the seat would have to be tested to the requirements of Standard No. 210 if it meets the requirements of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207. The seat must meet the requirement of S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207 and the seat belt anchorages must separately meet the requirements of Standard No. 210. As a manufacturer, your responsibility is to certify that the seat and safety belt anchorages will meet each of those requirements. You may not have to conduct two separate tests if you can demonstrate compliance to both sets of requirements when the seat and seat belt anchorage are tested in accordance with S4.2(c) of Standard No. 207.

In your fourth question, you asked whether the struts specified in S5.1.1 of Standard No. 207 can be used in testing the system. S5.1.1 provides that if "the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments," a strut can be secured on each side of the side for the purposes of securing a rigid crossmember used in loading the seat. In the case of your seat, the seat back and the seat bench are attached to the vehicle by the same attachments and thus use of the struts is permitted.

You then asked how the center of gravity of the seat is to be determined for the purpose of the test. You asked whether you are to determine the center of gravity of the entire system, including the seat stand with the air suspension and slide mechanism. In a July 14, 1983 letter to Mack Trucks, Inc., NHTSA addressed the issue of how to apply the loading required by Standard No. 207 to a heavy-duty truck seat which, as with yours, includes a suspension system and is mounted on a pedestal-like structure.

In its letter, Mack explained that it tests its seat in a two step process. First, the seat supplier for Mack mounts the seat cushion and the seat back on a rigid structure and tests the seat to the performance requirements of Standard No. 207 by applying 20 times the weight of the seat cushion and seat frame to the seat. Then, Mack conducts a separate test of the seat cushion and seat back with those components mounted on the pedestal used in its trucks. In that test, Mack subjects those components to 20 times the weight of the seat back, seat cushion and pedestal applied at the center of gravity of the entire seat system (seat back, seat cushion, and pedestal).

In responding to Mack, NHTSA said that a manufacturer can separately test the seat in the manner followed by Mack. Thus, a manufacturer can conduct one test of the upper section of the seat by applying 20 times the weight of those components to the upper section and then separately test the seat, as anchored to the vehicle floor, by applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal, at the center of gravity of the entire seat.

In your sixth and final question, you asked whether the tether belt would have to meet the seat belt assembly requirements of Standard No. 209. S3 of Standard No. 209 defines, in part, a seat belt assembly as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle to mitigate the results of any accident. . . ." Since your tether belt is not designed to restrain an occupant, it would not be required to meet the requirements of Standard No. 209.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

DET-85-258

December 19, 1985

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Subject: Test Procedures for Seat Belt With Tether Belt

Regarding the compliance with the requirements of FMVSS 207 and 210, we would request you to answer the following questions and provide necessary information on a seat belt with tether belt, which is used on an airsuspension truck seat. Please see Fig. 1 on the next page for the outline of the system.

1. We think that (1) the securing on the floor end or the tether belt, (2) the tether belt itself, and (3) the area where the seat belt and tether belt are together secured to the seat constitute the seat belt anchorage as defined in FMVSS 270 S3. Is this correct?

2. Since the seat belt is secured to the seat together with the tether belt, we think FMVSS 207 S4.2(c) is applicable. Is this understanding correct?

3. If your answer to the question 2 above is yes, there seems to be no necessity for testing the system separately to FMVSS 210 S4.2 if the system meets the requirements or FMVSS 207 S4.2(c). Is this correct?

4. If your answer to the question 2 above is yes, is the use of the struts mentioned in FMVSS 207 S5.1.1 permitted in testing the system? Then, how is the center of gravity or the seat determined? Is it the center or gravity or the entire system including the seat stand which incorporates the suspension and slide mechanisms?

5. If the center of gravity is to be determined as in para. 4 above, this center exists inside the suspension mechanism as shown in Fig. 2, and thus the crossmember for the struts cannot be installed.

Is there any established regulation or procedure which specifies what load is to be applied where? If no, please advise what action we are to take.

6. It is our understanding that the tether belt is to meet the requirements or FMVSS 209 as linked to the seat belt. Is this understanding correct?

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Koji Tokunaga Manager, Engineering

jj

ID: nht92-8.5

DATE: April 3, 1992

FROM: Frank J. Sonzala -- Senior Vice President, International Transquip Industries, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Single Service Diaphragm Failure Test per FMVSS 121

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/1/92 from Paul J. Rice to Frank J. Sonzala (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 5/20/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Phil Gramm (A39; Std. 121); Also attached to letter dated 4/3/92 from Frank J. Sonzala to Phil Gramm (OCC 7206)

TEXT:

Under the current FMVSS 121 regulation, a diaphragm has been ruled as not being part of a brake chamber housing. The current regulation amendment, which is effective December 9, 1991, states:

In S5.6.6.2 and S5.6.6.3, the test sequence for S5.6.6.1 is as follows: The engine is turned off. Any single leakage type failure in any other brake system of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (excluding failure of a component of a brake chamber housing, but including failure of any brake chamber diaphragm that is part of any other brake system, including a diaphragm which is common to the parking brake system and any other brake system) is then introduced in the brake system.

An application actuation of the parking brake control is then made.

Thirty seconds after such actuation, a release actuation of the parking brake control is made. Thirty seconds after the release actuation, a final application actuation of the parking brake control is made.

During this particular test, it is assumed that the diaphragm has been failed. However, there is no determination as to what constitutes a failed diaphragm. ITI's testing and years of experience have shown that a hole in a diaphragm starts as a small tear, a wear point between the push rod plate and the diaphragm. By design, the diaphragm has a scrim of layered material interwoven and sandwiched between two pieces of neoprene or rubber.

As the rubber or neoprene wears, a part of the surface wears away, and the scrim material, made of a nylon glass woven material will start to be exposed. This woven material is a rip-stop design which does not allow the diaphragm to rip quickly or cultivate further tearing. Once the rip-stop has been worn by the push rod plate to an 1/8" hole, then any subsequent parking brake application in the ITI system, after such an 1/8" hole, will cause the brake chambers to apply, hold the proper grade as per FMVSS 121, and not be able to release. Original equipment manufacturers generally do not recognize that an 1/8" hole is sufficient to call a diaphragm failed. ITI has tested diaphragms extensively for their tear proclivities, and those test results are found in Exhibit C, attached.

In the ITI system, a hole as small as 1/8" in the diaphragm is detected and the brakes are automatically held in a mechanically locked position by the first parking application after the hole is created. In a spring brake system, a hole in a service diaphragm on the service side of a spring type parking brake goes physically undetected, so that a hole in a spring brake diaphragm can be ripped at 1/8" to 1/2" to 1" and beyond. This design fault in spring brake

systems allows vehicles to be on the highway without proper service brake applications. A soft or weak brake may not even be noticeable to a driver at low air pressure applications. But in the need for a hard application such as in a panic stop, this service diaphragm can be ripped too far, causing the vehicle to go beyond a safe stopping mode.

In the case of the ITI Air Brake System, the system incorporates a constant air check of every component that is designed to hold compressed air. If a component that is designed to hold compressed air has failed, and specifically if a diaphragm has failed, it is detected at the moment of its failure. In the case of the diaphragm, a hole of approximately 1/8" would still allow the brake to be applied, therefore meeting the sequence testing. But an 1/8" hole will not allow the mechanical locking piston to release, therefore holding the retardation force through the second phase of this test sequence. Because the retardation force is being held, the brake remains applied through all phases of the test procedure. By design, the ITI Air Brake chamber cannot develop over 1/8" hole in its parking or service diaphragm. This particular chamber uses one diaphragm to accomplish both tasks.

In a demonstration done at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's offices on October 31, 1991, a failed diaphragm with an 1/8" hole was shown to the following parties: Blaine Laubis, Richard Carter, George Entwistle, Scott Schadle, and Larry Minor.

The demonstration showed clearly that the brakes can be applied with adequate air pressure and mechanically locked. Because the system senses the failure, the chamber cannot be released from that park position, and it will remain applied in a safe failure mode. The demonstration was done because many of the original equipment manufacturers with whom we wish to do business have a problem with the testing sequence of the failed diaphragm, and we hoped that NHTSA would be able to clarify the test procedure and the failed diaphragm parameters. The problems with S5.6.6.1 are as follows:

#1 The size of the failure hole in a diaphragm has not been defined.

#2 The common position of the failure hole in the diaphragm has not been defined.

International Transquip Industries has designed a fail safe mode into their non-spring brake type brake actuator that prevents any vehicle from being put on the road with a hole in the diaphragm greater than 1/8". This design is far superior to the spring brake systems that are now in use on our highways. A hole in a parking diaphragm in a spring brake system may begin or start while the vehicle is in motion. Once that hole starts, air pressure will allow the spring to creep on, possibly causing fires, possibly causing jackknifes, possibly causing a moving vehicle accident. This cannot happen with the ITI Air Brake System. ITI's system prevents spring brake accidents such as the one reported in Docket Part 571 (amended) Docket 87-04 Notice 6 (copy of which is enclosed - Exhibit A).

ITI requires a ruling that will state that an 1/8" hole in a service system diaphragm constitutes a failed diaphragm for the purposes of the test sequence in S5.6.6.3, and that the hole must be placed on the service diaphragm within 1 inch of where the push rod plate meets the diaphragm. A drawing accompanies this letter showing the common area where these failures tend to occur.

(Exhibit B). A hole much larger than 1/8" or placed anywhere else in the diaphragm would not constitute a realistic and valid test. Additionally, in the ITI Air Brake System, the hole in the diaphragm can only be put into the system after the system is fully aired up to 100 psi with all brakes released. The diaphragm must be taken out of the chamber and reinserted with a 1/8" hole for the test procedure as outlined in S5.6.6.3.

It should be borne in mind that the OEM test for all components is performed on new vehicles and all items are to pass a performance test to meet the regulations as outlined in FMVSS 121. It takes up to two million applications for a hole to wear into a diaphragm and therefore the failed diaphragm test under FMVSS 121 does not seem realistically justified. (We recommend that the diaphragm in a brake chamber should be considered a brake chamber component that does not require a separate test under FMVSS 121. If a torn diaphragm is to be tested, then the suggested test and size and placement of the diaphragm tear should be as stated in the previous paragraphs.

Our questions, therefore, for interpretation are:

1. Should a torn diaphragm be considered during a FMVSS 121 test, and if so, should the parameters as requested by ITI of 1/8" tear at one inch from the push rod plate area be used by OEMs for compliance testing?

2. Should other broken components such as heavy parking springs, brake shoes, lining and drums be part of the OEMs FMVSS 121 test requirements, based on the premise that a torn diaphragm should be tested?

Your prompt and positive response to these questions will prevent further loss of revenue to our company. Because of the ambiguity of the test procedure, and comments made by NHTSA personnel to OEM inquiries that refer to larger diaphragm failures as "being possible", International Transquip Industries, Inc. has lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales to major customers.

Attachments

Exhibit A. Letter dated 3/26/90 from Bob Brinton, owner, Friction Advisory Service, to NHTSA regarding Docket Revision Part 571 (Amended) - Docket #87-04 Notice 6.

Exhibit B. Drawing.

Exhibit C. Summary of Diaphragm Test Results.

(Text of attachments omitted.)