ID: nht74-2.28

DATE: 01/23/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Dow Chemical Europe, S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1974, concerning motor vehicle brake fluid certification.

The answer to your first two questions is no. The answer to your third question is also no, since the report of the independent testing laboratory covers only the fluid actually tested and bears no necessary relationship to a manufacturer's quality control program and the necessity to assure continuing compliance with Standard No. 116.

The answer to the fourth question is yes - the manufacturer must satisfy himself of continuing compliance and, when necessary, provide data to the NHTSA in substantiation of his certification.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

DOW CHEMICAL EUROPE S.A.

The Director -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,

Ref: MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID CERTIFICATION

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you for clarification on a point which is, alas, still causing some confusion here in Europe.

As you can see from the attachment, I wrote to the SAE in 1969 and my letter to them was forwarded to Dr. Robert Brenner for the DOT position. Unfortunately I never received a reply.

May I therefore repeat my enquiry:

1. Does the DOT/NHTSA issue certificates of compliance of brake fluid with the current Federal Regulations (FMVSS116, March 1972)?

assuming not:

2. Does the DOT/NHTSA officially recognise certain laboratories as being capable of testing to the requirements of the current Federal Regulations?

assuming not:

3. Is the DOT/NHTSA satisfied when the manufacturer of brake fluid obtains a test certificate from an independent testing laboratory, showing compliance of its product with current Federal Regulations?

assuming not:

4. Does the DOT/NHTSA simply place the onus on the manufacturer to satisfy himself and, when necessary, to prove that his product complies with current Federal regulations?

Furthermore, I should appreciate guidance on the following:

Previous to the issuance of Federal Regulations, most of the individual States had their own regulations pertaining to brake fluid. After the issuance of Federal Regulations, can it be assumed that no State Authority may take action against a supplier/manufacturer/trader of brake fluid not complying with that particular State's regulations, but complying fully with the Federal regulations?

In other words, may a State legally enforce requirements which are different, more stringent etc. than the Federal regulations?

I should like to thank you in advance for your trouble and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Technical Service & Development

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.

December 23, 1969

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Development and Services, Dow Chemical Europe S.A.

Dear Mr. Abbott:

This is in reply to your letter of December 11, 1969 regarding brake fluid certification.

As noted in your letter, the practice in the United States is that laboratories certify to the manufacturers that their fluids meet either SAE or Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. There is no control over the laboratories by SAE or the Federal Government. The competence of the laboratories is determined by the industry and those who use the laboratories specifically.

The policy which has been and will continue to be followed by SAE is to produce the best standards available and not to be involved in the deterimation of compliance to these standards. Since all SAE standards are for voluntary use by both industry and government, it would not be practical for us to do otherwise.

We cannot speak for the Department of Transportation which to the best of my knowledge does not at the present time have any plans to determine the adequacy of independent laboratories. I am referring your letter to Dr. Robert Brenner, Deputy Director, National Highway Safety Bureau (DOT) so that he can provide you with an official position regarding the Federal Government in this matter.

If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

Very truly yours,

Henry Martin -- Research Manager

cc: Robert Brenner

DOW CHEMICAL EUROPE S.A.

Society of Automotive Engineers

Attn. Hank Martin, permanent secretary, Brake Fluid Committ

Dear Mr. Martin,

As you are probably aware from certain questions raised at recent SAE Brake Fluid Committee meetings by personnel from Dow Chemical Company, Midland, we in Europe are at present experiencing some difficulty in establishing, for a large potential customer with a significant export business to the United States, the exact legal situation and also procedure required for a brake fluid to be considered legal within the United States.

At present, as I understand the situation and please correct me if I am wrong, a brake fluid is legal in the United States if it complies with the Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 116 which, in turn, states that fluids complying with SAE J 7OR1, R3 (and presumably J 1703 and J 1703a) automatically comply with Regulation 116.

The big question now is: who is to determine whether a brake fluid complies with SAE specifications. In the United States, the practice is, I am informed, for the manufacturer to submit the fluid in question to a so-called independent testing institute for examination against SAE specifications. Examples of such institutes would be Foster O. Snell, Electrical Testing, South-Western Research etc. and they would, as a disinterested party between manufacturer and buyer, issue a notarised certificate stating whether the fluid did or did not fulfil SAE specifications.

The point recently raised by our customer, however, was that does the Department of Transportation or the SAE, whose specification constitutes Standard 116, have any control or check on these independent laboratories, also does any official D.O.T. or SAE approval exist which would then certify these laboratories as being approved testing institutes capable of testing brake fluids completely against the legal mimimum requirements.

Consequently, I am asking you to kindly state for me the official SAE standpoint in this matter.

My since thanks in advance for your trouble.

Yours faithfully,

J. G. Abbott -- Transportation Chemicals Development and Service

ID: nht88-1.57

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 1988

FROM: SHIMAZU, KUNIO -- TOYOTA GENERAL MANAGER

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: INTERPRETATION -- FMVSS 208 -- AUTOMATIC SAFETY BELT PLACEMENT

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 3, 1988 LETTER FROM JONES TO SHIMAZU

TEXT: Toyota seeks NHTSA's concurrence with its interpretation of the belt placement requirement of FMVSS 208 applicable to automatic safety belts during dynamic testing.

Sec. 10.5.2, setting forth the belt path requirement, states:

S10.5.2 Automatic safety belts. Ensure that the upper torso belt lies flat on the test dummy's shoulder after the automatic belt has been placed on the test dummy.

However, this section does not clearly specify the belt path or how the belt is to be positioned on the dummy's shoulder. We are concerned that test personnel may feel that they are prohibited from adjusting the belt path after the door has been shut , unless the belt fails to lie flat on the test dummy's shoulder.

Compliance tests should not only be repeatable, but conducted under conditions which simulate as closely as possible those of

2

the real world. However, the belt path, immediately after the door has been shut, may not be appropriate for compliance testing if it differs from the real world belt path.

This difference occurs because a human occupant moves to operate controls (ignition key, transmission lever, seat adjustment, door lock, etc.) and adjusts the belt for optimum comfort after the belt has first been positioned across the torso. As show n in the video tape and Appendix attached to this letter, the initial belt path after the door closing is changed by occupant movement, and afterward the belt path remains in this new position.

NHTSA recognizes this in the note at the end of FMVSS 208 which states;

NOTE: The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal proce ss of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but wo uld normally slightly push the seat belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort.

3

Therefore, automatic belts that need slight adjustment by the occupant upon entry or for comfort, are recognized as such under this standard. Accordingly, in the case of this type automatic belt (where slight adjustment is needed) the initial belt pa th immediately after the door is shut differs from that after it is adjusted by the occupant.

For these reasons, we believe that the belt path on the test dummy should be adjusted by test personnel in the manufacturer's and NHTSA's compliance tests to ensure that the belt path simulates that of the real world.

There may be several methods to adjust the belt on the dummy to simulate a real world position. For example, moving the upper torso by grasping the dummy's head, pulling the belt some inches forward from the dummy's chest and releasing it, etc.

However, based on our experience, the results obtained through those procedures may vary. Accordingly, in order to achieve consistency before conducting a compliance test, NHTSA could request the manufacturer to provide its belt position procedure (a s it already now does in specifying its "normal design riding position" of an adjustable seat back).

Incidentally, we believe the most appropriate objective method is to place the belt over an imaginary straight line running from the upper to lower anchorage as seen from head on.

4

To test an automatic safety belt vehicle after merely closing the door is not only not repeatable but is not representative of real world conditions and, therefore, would not accurately measure the crashworthiness of the vehicle's occupant protection system.

Enclosures

INVESTIGATION OF BELT PATH

Using a TOYOTA Cressida and a Volkswagen Golf, we investigated whether the belt path on a dummy (the Hybrid III dummy) would differ from that of a human occupant. The Cressida is equipped with a typical motorized automatic belt system, whose shoulder an chorage is motor-driven along the roof side rail. The Golf, on the other hand, is equipped with a typical non-motorized belt system whose non-movable shoulder anchorage is attached to the door frame.

The video tape which accompanies this letter shows the results of our investigation.

Golf

Dummy

The Volkswagen Golf is shown first. After the dummy has been positioned according to the standard, the door is then shut to place the belt across the dummy's torso (please note test personnel made no adjustment to the dummy or the belt after the closing of the door). As the video shows, the belt catches on the dummy's upper shoulder.

2

Human Occupant

The same test is then carried out using a human occupant, equivalent to a 50th percentile adult male. Although the belt may lie improperly across the shoulder immediately after the door is shut, when the occupant moves forward to turn the ignition key, operate heater controls, etc. the belt will then move from that position to the middle of the shoulder. Under the same conditions, using a 95th percentile adult male, the belt lies across the middle of the shoulder after the door is shut.

This demonstrates that the unadjusted belt position on the dummy does not represent the normal riding belt position on a human occupant.

Cressida

The Cressida was tested under the same conditions as the Golf.

Dummy

After door closing, the belt lies higher on the dummy than the typical position marked on the chest based on our real world experience. The belt moves more than 30mm downward and stop when test personnel move the dummy's upper torso back and forth by gr asping the head.

3

Human Occupant

In the case of the human occupants equivalent to the 50th and 95th percentile adult males, the belts initially lie on the body at high positions. However, through body movement the belt moves to a lower position.

Summary

1. The belt path on a human body right after the door has been closed is, in most cases, quickly changed by occupant movement.

2. The belt path on a test dummy right after the door has been closed differs substantially from the belt path on a human occupant after movement.

ID: nht80-4.22

DATE: 12/02/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Seats Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 31, 1980, letter asking a question about the appropriate test force for school bus seat belts. In particular, you ask whether seat belts mounted on a seat frame that employ a common U-Bolt would be tested separately or simultaneously.

As you are aware, the agency issued an interpretation stating that for purposes of complying with Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, seat belts mounted on a school bus seat frame can be tested separately as long as they have separate anchorages. In that interpretation, the agency indicated that it would not consider the seat to be a common anchorage when testing school bus seat belts.

If I understand your letter correctly, your seat frame has separate anchorage holes in it. However, the inside portions of the two seat belt systems would be tied together by a common U-Bolt. If this is the means by which you will manufacture your school buses, the seat belts must be tested simultaneously. The use of the U-Bolt provides a common anchorage between the two seat belt systems which require simultaneous testing.

Seats

October 31, 1980

Roger Tilton U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Tilton:

I am requesting further clarification on FMVSS Standard 222, school bus seating, in the area of seat belt load requirements as outlined in FMVSS Standard 210.

It is my understanding that the simultaneous load testing for two passenger seats is not required but that the 5,000-pound force must be tested at each seating position as long as each seating position provides its own anchorage holes for seat belt mounting.

The clarification of this ruling I am requesting is: on a two-passenger seat, in the metal frame construction, there are holes or provisions for individual mounting of seat belts. If a person mounted these two seat belts in the center by means of a "U-Bolt" sliding the belts on the "U" and then attaching the two nuts, would this means still fall under the above mentioned requirements?

Harold J. Van Duser Engineering U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

OCT 27 1980

Mr. Harold Van Duser Seats, Inc.

Dear Mr. Van Duser:

Pursuant to your telephone request of October 15, 1980, asking for information relating to the test requirements for seat belts in school buses. I am enclosing a previous agency interpretation specifying the required test forces. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me.

Roger Tilton

ID: nht72-4.27

DATE: 01/01/72 EST.

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: British Standards Institution

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 26, 1972, on the subject of seat belt retractor testing under S5.2(k) of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209.

Your outline of the emergency locking retractor test procedure is essentially correct. During the initial 5,000 cycles, however, the belt is to be retracted completely, even though some vehicle installations may prevent complete retraction. The assumption in (3)(ii) of your letter is therefore incorrect.

The remaining points in your interpretation are correct.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

British Standards Institution

L R Schneider -- Chief Counsel, U S Department of Transporatation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

JULY 26, 1972

Dear Sir

F M V S S 209

We are writing as a National Test Laboratory concerned with automotive safety testing and, in particular, seat belt assemblies to your specifications. Some parts of the specification are open to interpretation and we are, of course, concerned that we should operate our test procedure in the accepted manner.

In particular, we would request that you confirm our test methods in connection with Clause S5.2(k) "Performance of retractor". In the case of emergency locking retractors, we proceed as follows:-

1) Corrosion test.

2) Manual withdrawal retraction for 25 cycles.

3) 2500 cycles from full extension to full retraction with an application of 20 lbs force at full extension.

Note (i) As this force is dynamically applied, the mass concerned is less than 20 lbs.

(ii) Full retraction is assumed to mean the full possible retraction of the assembly when installed in a motor vehicle. This will be less than the capability of the retractor, but reflects the practical conditions providing the installation data is obtained from the belt submittor.

4) Temperature resistance test.

5) 2500 additional cycles as (3).

6) Dust test.

7) Manual withdrawal and retraction for 25 cycles.

8) For emergency locking retractors, 45000 cycles operated between the limits of 50% extraction and 100% extraction.

Note (i) The stroke will therefore be half of that applied for the initial 5000 operations and will fully extract the webbing on each occasion.

(ii) Because full extraction occurs, the 20 lbs force will be applied during the 45000 operations as well as the previous 5000 operations.

9) During the initial 5000 operations, 1000 locking operations occur and during the final 45000 operations, 9000 locking operations occur. The locking operations are applied at any point between 50% extraction and 100% extraction.

10) The 20 lbs force is applied on every cycle including the locking cycles.

We should be grateful for your assistance in this matter as a considerable quantity of test work is awaiting clarification of this particular test procedure.

Yours faithfully for Director

R A C DANDY -- Senior Engineering; Head of Mechanical Section

ID: 007901.jeg

Chris Tinto, Director
Toyota North America, Inc.
1850 M Street
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036




Dear Mr. Tinto:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, with regards to adjusting the seat back angle for the low risk deployment tests for the driver. You asked about the order of the seat adjustments for the chin on module test (S26.2) and the chin on rim test (S26.3).

As you noted in your letter, the same seat adjustment procedure is specified for both tests. S26.2.3 and S26.3.1 read as follows:

Place the seat and seat cushion in the position achieved in S16.2.10.3.1. If the seat or seat cushion is adjustable in the vertical direction by adjustments other than that which primarily moves the seat or seat cushion fore-aft, determine the maximum and minimum heights of the SCRP at this position, while maintaining the seat cushion reference line angle as closely as possible.Place the SCRP in the mid-height position. If the seat back is adjustable independent of the seat, place the seat back at the manufacturer's nominal design seat back angle for a 50th percentile adult male as specified in S8.1.3.Position any adjustable parts of the seat that provide additional support so that they are in the lowest or most open adjustment position.Position an adjustable head restraint in the lowest and most forward position. (Emphasis added.)

In your letter, you indicated that the seat back angle may vary depending on when it is adjusted during this procedure.You stated your belief that the adjustment of the seat back angle specified in the fourth (underlined) sentence of this paragraph is conducted after the adjustments specified in the previous sentences, and asked us to confirm that view.

It is our opinion that the various seat adjustments specified in S26.2.3 and S26.3.1 are to be made in the order specified in those paragraphs.Accordingly, we agree that the adjustment of the seat back angle specified in the fourth (underlined) sentence of this paragraph is conducted after the adjustments specified in the previous sentences.

I hope this information is helpful.If you have any further questions, please call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.1/1/05

ID: nht92-9.46

DATE: January 21, 1992

FROM: William H. Spain -- Touch Wood

TO: Taylor Vinson -- Legal Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/27/92 from Paul J. Rice to William H. Spain (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We have developed a lighting device for heavy duty trucks which may or may not fall under the purview of NHTSA statues.

We have very briefly discussed this with your Mr. Britell and Mr. Cavey, who suggested that we submit the information to you.

I am attaching a description of the device and as a separate item the way we feel the statues may or may not apply to it. Please be patient and understanding as I am not a lawyer.

I want to be clear in that we are not seeking an endorsement or even an opinion as such. We do not want to put you in the position of having to make a ruling. All we ask is your initial first impression as to whether or not we might have a problem. We have spent quite a bit of time and money on this device and are to the point of manufacture. If we have a problem then we need to stop now and back away from it. We do not intend to get into an argument over it, we will let it die first. We do however think it is a needed device that is totally in harmony with the stated purpose of 571.108 and that the device will save lives.

Realizing how very busy you must be as well as needing an indication at your earliest convenience, I have tried to keep the attached as brief as possible.

Your assistance is very much appreciated and we will be looking forward to hearing from you.

AUXILIARY LIGHTING DEVICE

As you are aware on trucks both the left and right turn signal circuits are separate from the tail lamp circuit. This device uses both the left and right turn signal circuit to act as either emergency/auxiliary tail lamps or as fog lamps. When in use neither of these new functions will interfere with normal operation of the turn signals. Each function shall be described separately.

These two new functions are controlled by a normal toggle switch mounted on the vehicle dash. In the toggle switches normal position, it is off.

It is not an uncommon occurrence for a tractor/trailer to lose its tail lamps due to a circuit or wiring malfunction. A obvious contributing factor is the constant switching of trailers between trucks. When this occurs the driver's only choice on the road is to switch on his hazard flashers which is not their intended purpose and is disconcerting to other motorists. It also defeats his normal turn signal circuits.

If our toggle switch is flipped upward to a position marked (on a nameplate) "EMERG T/LMPS", then two things happen. Firstly the center of the toggle switches lever, or paddle is illuminated and glows red. This is to remind the driver that he has something on that is not normal and to remind him to turn it off when it is no longer needed. Secondly a reduced voltage is fed through both right and left rear turn signal circuits to cause both turn signal lamps to illuminate at a reduced brilliance equal to that of a normal tail lamp. If either turn signal is activated then the full voltage is fed to that particular (left or right) lamp and the lamp flashes at its normal turn signal brilliance. To an observer the net effect is the same as normal turn signal operation (which it is).

In the event of a failure of the normal tail lamps this device provides a means of normal illumination on the vehicle's trailer and allows the driver to proceed in a safe manner to a location to have the failed, regular tail lamps repaired.

Another problem with all vehicles is reduced visibility in fog. In heavy fog the only present choice is for a motorist or trucker to activate their hazard flashers for increased rear visibility. Again this practice is disconcerting and defeats the use of normal turn signals. The European countries allow and on some trucks require a rear special fog lamp of increased brilliance for use in fog.

If our switch is flipped downward to a position marked R/FOG again two things happen. First the center of the switch will illumine red. Second a higher voltage is fed through both rear turn signal circuits to cause them to burn at approximately their full brilliance. If however either turn signal is activated then that particular (right or left) side reverts to normal turn signal operation. Therefore normal turn signal operation is not defeated.

The circuitry of our device is so configured that it automatically adjusts for the particular number of turn signal lamps on a particular truck/trailer.

STATUTES

First it shoUld be noted and considered that this device is totally in harmony with the stated purpose of 571.108.

There are obviously two directions to take in considering application of 571.108 to this device. It is very likely that 571.108 does not apply to this device. This is an auxiliary device. It does not affect those items which are required by 571.108 and auxiliary devices of this nature are not addressed by 571.108.

This device in its emergency tail lamp mode would be used only upon failure of the vehicle's regular lighting system. Its effect would be no different from the driver calling a wrecker which after hooking up would place the wrecker's own emergency tail lamps upon the rear of the towed vehicle. Obviously the wrecker's portable emergency/auxiliary tail lamps do not have to comply with 571.108 although they become the towed vehicle's tail lamps. Just as obviously they are needed on the rear of the towed vehicle on a temporary basis.

This device in its rear fog lamp mode would be two auxiliary lamps on the rear which do not interfere with normal operation of either the vehicle's normal tail lamps or turn signals. For that matter all new Jaguar automobiles imported into the U.S. come with two rear fog lamps as standard.

If however the position were to be taken that this device does fall under 571.108 then it becomes more complicated. S5.1.1.11 refers to minimum candlepower for turn signal LAMPS. This does not apply as it is common practice for manufacturers to utilize a common LAMP for both tail lamp and turn signal function. Although they do this by utilizing a dual filament bulb and dual circuits, there is no section of 571.108 requiring that this particular method be used. The net effect of our device would be identical to that of a dual filament bulb/separate circuit.

As our device does not impair the operation of any lamps required by 571.108 then we are in compliance with S5.1.3.

Whereas the normal location of rear turn signal lamps on any vehicle is assumed to be in compliance with 571.108 then these exact same lamps would also be in compliance when illuminated by our device (S5.3.1.1).

it is possible that we may have to configure our circuit in such a manner that when our switch is in the up position for emergency tail lamps it wold be on whenever the vehicle's headlamps were on. (S5.5.3).

Reference S5.5.10 (a) and when the turn signal lamps are used in conjunction with our device they are wired to flash. The lamps do not however become turn signal lamps until such time as the turn signal function is selected (by the operator). Prior to that time, the circuit, filaments, lamps, etc. can be used for other purposes as they are not turn signals until activated for that function and purpose. An example of this is the use of the turn signal circuit, filaments and lamps as stop lamps on many cars. The circuit, filaments and lamps are used in stop lamp mode until they are activated as turn signals at which time the stop lamp mode is interrupted on the appropriate side and they become turn signal lamps.

ID: nht71-5.18

DATE: 12/09/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 26, 1971, in which you asked our opinion on how to position a 50th percentile 6-year-old child in determine the conformity of a seat belt warning system to S7.3.1(c) of Standard No. 208. Our opinion is that the child should be positioned with his back against the back of the seat and his head upright, in the posture in which he would be held by the seat belt if it were buckled around him as specified in S7.1. This is the position that will be used in our tests for conformity to S7.3.1(c).

The language that you cite from S8.1.11(b) of the standard ("normal upright(Illegible Words) to the positioning of test devices during the dynamic tests specified in S4 and S5, but is not applicable to the belt adjustment and warning system requirements of S7. The position that we intend to use under S7.3.1(c) is therefore not based on any definition of normal upright sitting posture."

ID: 06-005540as

ID: nht88-3.33

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/06/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: ROBERT DAUGHERTY -- QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGER SAFETY REHAB SYSTEMS, INC.

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 10/16/86 TO TERRY WOODMAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 07/31/87 TO RICHARD J. MAHER FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; LETTER DATED 02/05/88 TO ERIKA Z JONES FROM ROBERT DAUGHERTY, OCC - 1588; UNDATED BROCHURE SAFETY PLUS MODEL 501 STROLLER ;

TEXT: Dear Mr. Daugherty:

This is a response to your letter of February 5, 1988, in which you sought an interpretation of Standard 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). I regret the delay in this response. Specifically, your letter stated that your company manufactur es wheelchairs for severely handicapped children. Your letter stated that your company believes that Standard 213 does not apply to "durable medical products (wheelchairs, positioning systems)" and asked if this belief is correct. As explained below, y our belief is not entirely correct.

Section S3 of Standard No. 213 specifies that "this standard applies to child restraint systems for use in motor vehicles and aircraft." Section S4 of the standard defines a child restraint system as "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, desig ned for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." No exception is made for restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children who weigh 50 pounds or less. Further, paragraph S6.1 .2.1.1 of Standard No. 213 includes the following language: "A child harness, booster seat with a top anchorage strap, or a restraint designed for use by physically handicapped children shall be installed at the center seating position of the standard se at assembly in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system pursuant to S5.6." This language makes clear that restraints designed for use by physically handicapped children are subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213.

Under these criteria, wheelchairs, strollers, and so forth would not be "child restraint systems" within the meaning of Standard No. 213 because these devices are designed to transport children outside of a motor vehicle or aircraft. Therefore, wheelchai rs, strollers, and similar devices are not child restraint system within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213. Such devices may be subject to regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, under its authority to regulate medical "devices."

However, the devices described in your letter as "positioning systems" are child restraint systems subject to the requirements of Standard No. 213. Your "Safety Plus Model 501" includes a "removable positioning unit" that is designed to restrain and po sition a child riding in a motor vehicle. Your "900 Series Transporter" is designed so that the rear wheels can be folded under it to allow it to be used to restrain and position a child riding in a motor vehicle. Therefore, these devices are "child res traint systems" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 213, and must be certified as complying with the requirements of the standard. NHSTA has said in the past that, since it is possible to offer handicapped children the same level of crash protectio n afforded to all other children, there is no reason to permit handicapped children to be (See the enclosed October 16, 1986 letter I sent to Mr. Terry Woodman on this subject.)

You also asked if there are any standards applicable to "tie-downs" used on school buses. These "tie-downs" are straps designed to restrain wheelchairs and their occupants in a motor vehicle in the event of a crash. Since wheelchairs are not subject to Standard No. 213 or any other of this agency's regulations, as explained above, we have no standard applicable to "tie-downs" or other devices used to position wheelchairs in motor vehicles. I explained this in detail in the enclosed July 31, 1987 lett er to Mr. Richard Maher.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions or need more information on this subject, please feel free to contact Ms. Joan Tilghman of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ENCLOSURES

Sincerely,

ID: nht91-5.28

DATE: August 19, 1991

FROM: Thomas D. Turner -- Manager, Engineering Services, Blue Bird Body Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert Hellmuth -- OVSC

TITLE: Re Request for Interpretation: 1. 49 CFR Part 571.217 Sections S5.3 and S5.4 2. Report No. 217-MSE-90-10-TR0009-10 Bus Window Retention and Release Compliance Test-FMVSS 217 1990 Blue Bird (33 Passenger) 3. NEF-31KNu/NCI 3189 4. NEF-31KNu/NCI-3189.2

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 11-13-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Thomas D. Turner (A38; Std. 217)

TEXT:

A 1990 Blue Bird bus was compliance tested to the requirements of FMVSS 217 as reported in Reference 2. As a result of the test, NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) issued NCI letters, including references 3 and 4. Blue Bird Body company responded as requested to reference 3 and requested and attended a technical meeting on July 2, 1991 in Washington, D.C. in response to reference 4. As a result of this activity, there is one issue that needs to be formally resolved before NCI 3189 can be closed. The following paragraphs discuss the issue, provide the OVSC position, provide the Blue Bird Body Company position and request an interpretation of which position is correct according to Standard No. 217.

49 CFR Part 571.217-Sections S5.3.2 and S5.4.1

Discussion:

Section S5.3.2 provides two force application options for options for emergency exit release mechanisms. Option (a) LOW FORCE APPLICATION specifies type of motion as "Rotary or straight", and magnitude as "Not more than 20 pounds." Option (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION specifies type of notion as "Straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface.", and magnitude as "Not more than 60 pounds." Section S5.4.1 establishes emergency exit extension reach distances and force levels based on Section S5.3.2.

OVSC Position:

As stated in Reference 4, the OVSC position is: "In this case the release handle is pin jointed at the top much like a piano hinge. The only possible movement the handle can experience is to rotate around the pin joint. The release mechanism neither slides nor translates, IT VERY CLEARLY ROTATES. The video that Blue Bird supplied this office shows that the handle rotates during the release of the window. An occupant of the bus would then have to apply a force in a rotary notion to operate the release mechanism. The maximum release should therefore be 20 lbs."

Blue Bird Body Company Position:

Blue Bird Body Company agrees with the OVSC that the release mechanism of the pushout window design used by Blue Bird is rotary; however, it is our understanding that Standard 217 regulates the "type of motion" of the FORCE APPLICATION used to manually operate the release mechanism and does not regulate the "type of motion" of the RELEASE MECHANISM itself. Blue Bird Body Company disagrees with the OVSC that an occupant would have to use a rotary motion to operate the mechanism. The introduction of the book The Way Things Work by David Macaulay supports Blue Bird's position by stating:

MOVEMENT AND FORCE Many mechanical machines exist to convert one form of movement into another. This movement may be in a straight line (in which case it is often backward-and-forward, as in the shuttling of a piston-rod) or it may be in a circle. Many machines convert linear movement into circular or rotary movement and vice versa, often because the power source driving the machine moves in one way and the machine in another.

But whether direction is altered or not, the mechanical parts move to change the force applied into one-either larger or smaller-that is appropriate for the task to be tackled. (1)

---------- (1) David Macaulay, Houghton Mifflin Company, The Way Things Work, Copyright 1988, ISBN 0-395-42857-2

The essence of our argument and position is the principal that a straight linear force can be used to operate a rotary mechanism. A weight put on a lever arm and used to lift an object against the force of gravity is an example of this principle. The straight linear force of gravity acting on the weight is the only application force acting on the lever arm. The lever arm's reaction to this force will be rotary motion and will involve other motions and forces; however, the application force of gravity, since it acts only in a direction toward the center of the earth, remains straight and linear. As another example, a latch string, extending through the latch string hole of a door, can be pulled straight out and perpendicular to the surface of door to activate the latch bar and allow opening of the door. Note that in this example, the latch bar pivots or rotates in a different plane and direction from the application force.

Since the pushout window release mechanism of the Blue Bird pushout windows is in the high force application region and is releasable by a single occupant, operating one mechanism, using one force application that is straight, perpendicular to the undisturbed exit surface, we must be allowed the use of option (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION and, therefore, are allowed a magnitude of 60 pounds.

The report, reference 2, determined the type of motion of release mechanism of the Blue Bird pushout window to be rotary and, therefore, determined the required force application to 20 pounds maximum. It determined the type of motion for extension of the pushout window to be

straight and perpendicular and, therefore, allowed a 60 pound application force. The pushout windows are hinged at the top and must swing out (rotate) to open. In a nearly identical way, the release mechanism is hinged at the top and must swing in (rotate) to unlatch. The only difference, from a principle of mechanics viewpoint, is the length of the lever arm from the hinge to the point of force application. For the latch mechanism, the lever arm is short and the motion appears rotary. For the pushout window, the lever arm is long, and the motion appears linear in reality, both motions are rotary but both can be actuated by straight linear force applications. The discrepancy and inconsistency in applying different requirements to mechanisms that operate in the same manner must be resolved and the resolution must be based on established principles of mechanics.

Request for Interpretation:

Blue Bird Body Company requests confirmation that the requirements of reference 1, with regard to motion, apply to the application forces and not to the release mechanisms being activated by the forces. Further, we request confirmation of our understanding of the principles of mechanics, as applicable to FMVSS 217 requirements, that straight linear forces can cause rotary notion to occur and can be used to manually operate a rotary mechanism. Blue Bird's desire that our pushout rectangular transit window design be allowed the use of Section S5.3.2 (b) HIGH FORCE APPLICATION of 60 pounds is consistent with both the letter of FMVSS 217 and the intent of the standard. We believe the requirements as written, acknowledge the limitations in typical human physical capabilities. When rotary motion (involving gripping and forearm rotation) is required to operate a release mechanism (such as rotating a common door knob) the allowable force levels are restricted to 20 pounds. Similarly, if reach distances for straight motion are such that body and arm extension are required to reach the mechanism, the allowable force levels are restricted to 20 pounds. Hence in these cases, the "Access Region for Low Forces" and LOW FORCE APPLICATION are required. When a push or pull force is required and the reach distances are small, as is the case with the Blue Bird pushout transit window latch, a human being can easily exert higher forces and the "Access Region for High Forces" and HIGH FORCE APPLICATION are allowed. If NHTSA believes that it is more appropriate for pushout windows to operate within the Low force application requirements, such a change should be implemented through Rulemaking Action and not by interpretations made in Compliance Test Procedures.

Blue Bird Body Company requests that thoughtful and timely responses to the above requests for interpretation be provided so that NCI 3189 can be satisfactorily resolved and closed in the best interests of motor vehicle safety.

If additional information or further discussion will assist in timely resolution of the issues involved, we will be glad to visit NHTSA to provide whatever information or assistance possible.