ID: nht73-3.21

DATE: 02/07/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Satoshi Nishibori

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of December 15, 1972, and January 3, 1973, concerning paragraph S7.4.3 of Standard 208.

As I understand the question, you are positing a situation in which the occupants have correctly operated their belts, thereby permitting the engine starting system to operate, but in which the cranking of the engine by the starter motor does not start the engine and the key is returned to the "on" position. Your question is whether the ignition can thereafter be turned from "on" to "start" in repeated efforts to start the engine, without interference from the interlock.

Our reply is that S7.4.3 permits a system in which the initial correct operation of the belts, followed by operation of the starting system, places the system in a "free-start" mode so long as the ignition is not turned to "off". Repeated efforts to start the engine would therefore be permitted, regardless of the status of the belts.

If the ignition has been turned off and if the system is not in another of the "free-start" modes allowed by S7.4.3, then the engine starting system will not be operable with an unbelted driver on the seat unless an engine compartment switch is operated pursuant to S7.4.4.

ID: nht73-3.22

DATE: 02/08/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: United States Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 26, 1973, which was forwarded to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by National Transportation Safety Board Chairman John H. Reed, regarding the position of the shoulder harness on the Toyota Corona purchased by Mr. John McCauley of Mattapan, Massachusetts. A copy of the constituent's letter is enclosed.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant(Illegible Word) Protection, requires that all cars made after January 1, 1972, have lap and shoulder belts which fit specified occupant sizes. Our Office of Standards Enforcement has made telephone contact in order to obtain more detailed information on Mr. McCauley's vehicle and the exact nature of the safety belt problems which he experienced.

I appreciate Mr. McCauley's interest in motor vehicle safety and his bringing this situation to our attention. As we had recently received a similar complaint on another model Toyota automobile, our Office of Standards Enforcement is conducting an investigation of the entire matter.

ID: nht73-3.23

DATE: 02/12/73

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

TO: Rubber Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 5, 1973, to Dr. Edward H. Wallace, concerning your objections to the informal rulemaking procedures employed by NHTSA in adding new tire sizes and rims to the Appendices to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Nos. 109 and 110 (49 CFR 571.109, 110). You enclose two form letters sent to you by NHTSA which indicate that certain tire sizes and rims will be included in the Appendices, and object to the delay that appears to occur between your receipt of these letters and the time the amendment to the Appendices is published in the Federal Register.

Your letter indicates a possible misunderstanding of the requirements applicable to rulemaking procedures, and how these requirements affect the publication of new tire sizes and rims in the Appendices of the two safety standards.

The NHTSA is required, under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), to amend all motor vehicle safety standards (amendments to the appendices of Standards Nos. 103 and 110 are amendments to the standards) by publication in the Federal Register. The submittal of documents to the Federal Register is governed by regulation (Title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 - 40) which the NHTSA must follow in submitting documents for publication. Simply stated, these regulations would not permit the NHTSA to merely send to the Federal Register copies of these acknowledgment letters, for publication, as you suggest. Documents must be prepared utilizing a specific format. We have recently modified the method by which NHTSA amends the Appendices in a way that permits these documents to be prepared in a shorter time. Moreover, normally notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity to comment is required to be published before such amendments can become effective. The procedures about which you complain actually shorten the time that would otherwise be necessary for these changes to take effect. The form letter which you refer to as providing approval is

no more than an acknowledgment and indicates only that the tire size designations and rim sizes in question will be included in the next amendment to the Appendices, under the special procedures which allow their use in 30 days if objections are not received.

For these reasons, we have not found it administratively practicable to publish notices of additional tire sizes whenever they may be received. We have indicated our intention to publish amendments quarterly. While we have not met this schedule as consistently as we hoped, we expect to improve our efforts in this regard in the future.

ID: nht73-3.24

DATE: 02/14/73

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

TO: Orin D. Miner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Contact 6 of Milwaukee, Wisconsin has sent us a copy of your letter asking that we respond to your questions.

In your letter you inquire as to the distribution of fines collected from tire manufacturers as a result of their manufacturing tires that do not comply with the requirements of the Federal standard for passenger car tires (Standard No. 109).

Monies collected as settlement offers are transmitted to the general funds of the United States Treasury.

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including the passenger car tire standard, are minimum standards vehicle manufacturers and equipment manufacturers are required to meet. They are issued to give assurance that if the product in question meets the standards the public will have some protection against unreasonable risk of death or injury.

In addition to the question of civil penalties, manufacturers of non-conforming vehicles or tires are usually required to issue a defect notification and are urged to replace the defective equipment. Your complaint does not appear to be concerned with a safety related problem but rather with tires that you believe have not given you adequate treadwear. This is not an area covered by existing standards, however, this agency has under consideration a quality grading regulation which would include grading requirements for the treadwear life of each tire manufactured after a given date.

Concerning your recommendation that Federal inspectors be placed in tire manufacturers' plants, this has been considered at various times and the agency's present thinking is that the cost and manpower involved would not warrant this course of action.

Thank you for your interest in auto safety and your views in this area.

ID: nht73-3.25

DATE: 02/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 23, 1973, concerning the sequence of manual switch operation under S7.4.4 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. Your question is whether S7.4.4 requires the manual switch and ignition switch to be operated in a specific order.

S7.4.4 does not require any specific sequence. After the ignition has been turned off, it can be made operable either by turning the ignition switch on, then operating the manual switch, or by operating the manual switch and then turning the ignition on.

ID: nht73-3.26

DATE: 02/14/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Douglas W. Toms; NHTSA

TO: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 27, 1972, concerning the absence from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 of requirements for seat belts after the passive restraint requirements become effective.

Our aim in the last three years has been to improve the protective capabilities of the autombile so that it will automatically protect its occupants from serious injury and death. We do not intend in the least to disparage seat belts -- to the contrary, we are making every effort to encourage their use. However, as passive restraints are installed, the marginal benefits to be gained from belts do not appear to be great enough to justify keeping them as required equipment.

The impacts that particularly concern you -- those occurring between 90 degrees and 270 degrees -- are partially covered by the lateral impact test of Standard 208. Impacts in which the force is more nearly rearward are the subject of continuing investigation by our Research Institute, with a view toward possible improvements in the rear-end structure. If standards are proposed concerning rear impact protection, they will probably focus on improved seat structure or on rear-end modifications rather than on seat belts.

We think the course we are following will result in significantly increased protection for the motoring public.

ID: nht73-3.27

DATE: 02/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Kelsey-Hayes Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of October 23, 1972 and January 25, 1973, concerning the intent of the antilock performance requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121. I apologize for our delay.

Your question arises from an amendment to S5.3.1 of the standard. As originally adopted in February 1971, the section required that the vehicle be capable of stopping without wheel lockup except for "momentary" lockup allowed by an antilock system. As amended in February 1972, the word "controlled" is used in place of "momentary", so that the section now provides that stops are made

without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 m.p.h. except for controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system . . . .

In making this change, the agency had in mind the type of antilock system that was designed to permit one wheel on an axle to lock under some circumstances while the other wheels continued to turn. It was thought that adequate control could be attained by such systems, and the standard was amended accordingly.

The question you raise is whether a system could be designed in which all wheels could be permitted to lock for substantial periods, so long as they are "controlled" by an antilock system. As you correctly indicate, the term "controlled", unlike "momentary", is not a time-related word. Our answer, therefore, is that such an antilock system would be permitted under the standard as it now stands.

It is our present opinion, however, that such a system would probably not provide an acceptable level of performance. If it appears that such a system would be installed, it is likely that we would undertake rulemaking action to prohibit it.

ID: nht73-3.28

DATE: 02/15/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Charles J. Simerlein

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 29, 1972, concerning the method in which a load is to be "secured in the luggage area" under the test procedures of Standard 208. I apologize for our delay.

The intent of S8.1.1(a) is to place the load in the luggage area in such a way that it stays there during the test. The standard does not specify the manner in which the load is secured. A manufacturer may secure it in any reasonable manner.

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