ID: nht88-1.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/88

FROM: SCOTT A. SNYDER

TO: NHTSA-REGION 3

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 8-11-88, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, TO SCOTT A. SNYDER, STD 108

TEXT: I am writing to you with regards to ornamental lighting. I am interested to know why you can not have extra lights on your vehicle as long as you keep amber lights on the front and sides and red lights in the rear of the vehicle. I think that a few ext ra lights on the side and rear of a vehicle would help other people see you better while driving at night.

I would appreciate it very much if I could have your response concerning ornamental lighting.

ID: nht88-1.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the provisions of S4.3 of the standard. I regret the delay in answering your questions.

S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides, in part, that "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section." (Emphasis added.) You first asked the agency to confirm that anchorages to be used with automatic and dynamically tested safety belts that meet the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from all of the anchora ge location requirements of S4.3. You are correct that S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that such anchorages are exempt from all the location requirements.

The amendment to exempt anchorages of dynamically tested seat belt assemblies from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210 became effective on May 5, 1986, well in advance of the September 1, 1989 effective date for dynamic testing of man ual belts. This effective date indicates that the agency did not intend to limit the exemption from the anchorage location requirements to manual safety belts that were required to be dynamically tested. Additionally, the exemption applies to dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that "meet" the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, rather than to vehicles "subject to" the frontal crash protection requirements of that Standard. This language indicates that NHTSA intended to allow manufacturers to take advantage of the exemption from the anchorage location requirements for dynamically tested safety belts before the dynamic testing requirements were applicable to such belts. Accordingly, if a vehicle is equipped with a manual safet y belt at either or both front outboard seating positions, and the anchorage or anchorages for those belts do not comply with the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3 of Standard No. 210, the manufacturer must certify that the belts attached at any such anchorage points comply with 55.1 of Standard No. 208.

In your second question, you asked the following:

We also understand that such dynamic testing may be combined with other compliance testing, and the vehicle or vehicles used may be equipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management feature s, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy absorbing instrument panel, collapsible steering column, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and funct ional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. The agency tests vehicles to the frontal barrier crash requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 in a single barrier impact. In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has d evices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our compliance testing shows t hat a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts would not be subject to the anc horage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 20, 1987

Ms. Erica Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-210

Dear Ms. Jones: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.(MBNA) requests an interpretation of FMVSS-2IC "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages-Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses". Paragraph S4.3 Location states, "Anchorages for automatic and for dyna mically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

MBNA interprets the foregoing provision to mean that all of the anchorage location requirements under paragraph S4.3 (i.e. S 4.3.1, S 4.3.1.1, S 4.3.1.2, S 4.3.1.3, S 4.3.1.4, and S 4.3.2) are not applicable to seat belt assemblies which have been dynami cally tested via a vehicle crash test and meet the occupant protection criteria described in S5.1 of Standard No. 208. We also understand that such dynamic testing may be combined with other compliance testing, and the vehicle or vehicles used may be equ ipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy absorbing instrument panel, collapsible steering column, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass: emergency tensioning retractors , etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-210

The basis for our interpretation is set forth in the Agency's preamble comments to MVSS-208 (Part 571; S208-PRE28B) concerning mandatory dynamic testing where the preamble provides that ". . . the (dynamic testing) standard will assure that the vehicle's structure, safety belts, steering column, etc., perform as a unit to protect occupants, as it is only in such a test that the synergistic and combination effects of these vehicle components can be measured". This factor when coupled with the Agency's st atement that the best way to measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination is through a vehicle crash test" fully supports our interpretation.

Accordingly, we would request that you confirm our interpretation that, during dynamic testing of seat belts, the vehicle should be equipped and functional as closely as possible to a new vehicle which would be sold to the consumer, and that such testing supplants the requirements of 54.3

Thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-1.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 (EST)

FROM: PAUL RENEAU

TO: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO PAUL A. RENEAU FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 118

TEXT: Dear Engineer:

Would you please review the following information and inform me as to whether the design of the power-operated window system described and specified meets rule no. 118, titled "Power-Operated Window Systems" as amended in 1983.

SPECIFICATION: As per rule no. 118, S1 in the schematic corresponds to the ignition key switch. S1 is closed in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position. Closing S1 activates transistor Q1 which deactivates transistor Q2. Q2 supplies voltage/current to transi stors Q3 and Q4. Q3 drives power relay K1 and Q4 drives power relay K2. Both relays have normally open contacts which supply voltage to drive electric window and/or partition motors. With S1 in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, normal power window and /or partition function exists. When the key that controls S1 is returned to the "OFF" position, Q1 is deactivated after capacitor C1 discharges through resistor R1 for a time period determined by RC timing circuit; D1, C1, R1 and Q1. Q2 is activated upo n deactivation of Q1 and supplies voltage/current to Q3 and Q4. Q3 is driven by RC timing circuit; C2, R3 for a time period determined by the values of C2 and R3. Q3, as stated, drives normally-open relay K1 which in turn drives electric motor M1. Q4 operates in a similar manner driving motor M2. Upon deactivation of Q3 and Q4, relays K1 and K2, and consequently, motors M1 and M2 are deactivated. With R3 and R4 as potentiometers, the corresponding motor activation can be adjusted for only as long a s required to close the said window and/or partition. S2 is closed when either front door is opened. This switch (es) corresponds to switches currently used on vehicle door posts to activate interior/courtesy lights and the door-ajar indicator. These switches are widely used and proven reliable in the industry. Opening either front door closes switch S2 and short circuits the RC timing circuits driving K1 and K2 thus instantaneously stopping motors M1 and M2. The said circuits are reactivated ONLY by closing S1 which requires that the key be in the ignition and in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position. This insures that the driver would almost certainly have to be in the vehicle.

2

SPECIFICATION cont.

In the event that a door is opened while the ignition key is in the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position, the RC timing circuit supplying Q3 and Q4 are shorted. If both front doors are not closed prior to returning the ignition key to the "OFF" position, the sy stem remains totally deactivated. It should be noted that in addition to the requirements of the NHTSA, this system also employs an "OFF/ON" switch which is easily accessible to the driver. This switch is not shown on the schematic, however, it supplie s ground to the system, and must be in the "ON" position prior to turning the ignition key from the "ON" or "ACCESSORY" position to "OFF" in order to activate the system. This switch allows the system to be turned off when it is not needed (cold weather ) or if the ignition key switch is not used to deactivate the system.

It is understood that component electrical ratings must be maintained as in any electrical device.

If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me.

Thank you for you time and promptness in reviewing this matter.

ENCLOSURE

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

ID: nht88-1.70

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: MARCH 15, 1988

FROM: CARL C. CLARK -- INVENTOR CONTACT, NHTSA

TO: CLAIRE HAVEN--QUADWEST, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 11-22-88 TO CLAIRE HAVEN, QUADWEST, FROM ERICKA Z. JONES, NHTSA; REDBOOK A33; STDS. 209, 208, 302; VSA108 (A)(2)

TEXT: Thank you for sending your "Joyride" Seatbelt Pad, which you propose to sell as a comfort rather than a safety feature. This nylon covered foam pad device fits inside of the shoulder belt and is attached to the shoulder belt by nylon babs running the le ngth of the pad (about 16 inches) with velcro along the entire length. You have asked for my comments on its design prior to your writing to Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel of this agency, for a formal letter as to whether the device would be expected to take a shoulder belt out of compliance with any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

The pad has a thickness of about one inch of moderately soft foam, sufficient to spread the load of the retractor force over its width of about 3.5 inches but not sufficient to spread the load under crash conditions, which would require a much stiffer pa d. In the model sent to me, the nylon tabs were closer together than the one and seven eights inches width of the belt, and so did not wrap around the belt to allow complete overlapping of the velcro. You advised me that this was an early model and lat er models had the proper clearance for the belt. Once the pad is in place from the shoulder across the chest, it does make the belt a little more comfortable, particularly if the retractor has a continuous pull, without the "windowshade" feature.

On getting out of the car, the pad must either be removed from the belt or slid toward the latch plate, or it prevents the retractor from reeling up the belt completely or in part, so that the belt may become tangled and less easy to use on the next entr y. We have tried the pad with an automatic motorized passive belt, which has a motor that moves the belt along a track around the door when the door is closed, automatically positioning the shoulder belt across the body; since the retractor is near the center of the car, the pad simply slid along the belt and caused no jamming.

When the pad is in place, it does introduce a slight amount of additional shoulder belt length, but within the one inch or so of acceptable slack, expectedly similar to wearing a coat under a belt.

We do not provide certification tests for showing compliance with standards, nor do we endorse products. A manufacturer, in selling an automotive product, is by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act "self-certifying" that the product meets a ll aplicable federal safety standards. Your product is used in association with the belts, covered under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208 and 209, but such a product is not specifically mentioned in these standards. Your device, if left on th e shoulder belt, retards or inhibits retraction, and so may inhibit subsequent belt use if the belt becomes tangled. But for those troubled by the slight retractor load on the shoulder (in some car models), the pad would expectedly increase the comfort o f using the belt. And for short people for whom the shoulder belt may rest flat on the neck, your pad may provide sufficient stiffness to hold the shoulder belt on the shoulder rather than on the neck, a potential safety benefit.

I see no technical safety objection to its use, but you should also request the formal review by the Chief Counsel as to whether there is any implication of interference of your device with an applicable standard.

ID: nht88-1.71

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Technical Administration Dept. Roito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500, Ritawaki Shimuzi--shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

Dear Mr. Iwase:

This is in reply to your letter of January 25, 1988, with respect to photometric values for stop lamps and taillamps on motorcycles, and the spacing required between them and turn signal lamps.

You have asked two questions with respect to two types of motorcycle rear lighting devices, which you call "Structure 1" and "Structure 2". Although a single lamp located on the vertical centerline may be used to fulfill rear lighting requirements on mot orcycles, each of your Structures features two bulbs, symmetrically placed on each side of the vertical centerline. Each Structure is a single lighting device, featuring a turn signal bulb at each extremity. In Structure 1 a chamber containing a tail/sto p lamp bulb is directly inboard of the chamber containing a turn signal bulb. The two chambers on each side are separated by a central portion of the device which is decorative in nature. Unlike Structure 1, Structure 2 is a three-chamber device, with se parate chambers at each end for the turn signal bulbs, and a central chamber incorporating two tail/stop lamp bulbs.

With respect to each Structure and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 you have asked:

"(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure 1b of S4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamp on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S4.1.1.11." Figure 1b specifies the minimum and maximum allowable candlepower values for lighting devices with one, two, and three lighted sections. However, the number of lighted sections is calculated with respect to each lamp, not the total number of lighted sect ions used for a specific purpose, or lit at a given time. We consider Structure 1 to comprise two separate tail/stop lamps, each consisting of a single chamber. Similarly, Structure 2 incorporates a single tail/stop lamp consisting of a single chamber in which two bulbs are used. Therefore, for both Structures and for both (a) and (b) the lamp should be designed so that the single chambers meet the photometric values for single compartment lamps.

Your second question for each Structure is whether the specified minimum edge to edge separation distance between turn signals and tail/stop lamps is required. The answer is yes, and the separation distance you have depicted in your drawings appears to c omply with this requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Air-Mail

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 U.S.A.

Subject: Tail & Stop Lamp for Motorcycle (1) photometric values (2) Spacing with Turn Signal Lamp

Dear Ms. Erika Z. Jones:

The photometric values which are required for tail & stop lamp for motorcycle are specified in S. 4.1.1.11 of FMVSS No. 108, and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp is specified in Table IV.

We would like to ask you the following questions concerning photometric values of tail g stop lamp for motorcycle and minimum spacing between the lamp and turn signal lamp in the cases of Structure-(1) and -(2) which are shown in the attached drawing.

Question-1:

In Structure-(1) and -(2), which of the following cases shall be applied for the photometric values required for tail & stop lamp?

(a) When tail & stop lamp on either side is lighted individually, it shall be satisfied with the photometric values of lighted section "1" which are specified in Figure lb of S. 4.1.1.11.

(b) When tail & stop lamps on both sides are lighted together, it shall be satisfied with the photo-metric values of lighted section "2" which are specified in figure 1b of S. 4.1.1.11.

Attn: Ms. Erika Z. Jones Date: Jan. 25, 1988

Question-2; For each case of Structure-(1) and-(2) as illustrated in the attached sheet, shall the specification of 4 inch minimum spacing between tail & stop lamp and turn signal lamp be required or not:

Upon your review, your prompt reply to this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Mr. Iwase Manager Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co., Ltd. Shizuoka Works

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht88-1.72

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C.I. Nielsen -- Vice President, General Sales Manager, Wesbar Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. I. Nielsen Vice President General Sales Manager Wesbar Corporation P.O. BOX 577 West Bend, WI 53095

This is in reply to your letter of February 17, 1988, asking for an interpretation of paragraph S4.1.1.7 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, which applies to turn signal lamps. In pertinent part this section requires turn signal lamps for vehicles whose overall width is 80 inches or more to "have an effective projected luminous area not less than 12 square inches." Your design has a lens area of 12 square inches incorporating an integral Class A reflex reflector, and you have asked whether you may include the "illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens" in your calculation.

We assume from your letter that the light shines through the reflector when the turn signal is activated, and that the reflector is not opaque. In this instance, the reflector area may be included as part of "the effective projected luminous area" within the meaning of S4.1.1.7.

I hope that this answers your question.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 17, 1988

Ms. Erika Jones, Chief Counsel-DOT Room 5219 NASSIf Building 400 7th Street, Southwest Washington, DC 20590

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE INTERPRETATION 54.1.1.7

Dear Ms. Jones:

We are writing to you for clarification of 54.1.1.7 of FMVSS 108. Our request involves turn signal lamps on trailers 80-inches or more in width and, practically speaking, centers around the wording "shall have an effective project luminous area not less than 12 square inches".

Our design calls for a multifunction lens of 12 square inches, which incorporates an integral Class A reflex reflector. QUESTION: When the turn lamp is activated, may we include, for the square inch calculation, the illuminated (by the turn signal bulb) reflex reflector portion of the turn signal lens: We know we are allowed to optically combine two, or more, functions (except for the tail light with the clearance light function), therefore, we don't see this concept as the hurdle. Instead, we find the question lying with the definition of "effective projected luminous area".

Thank you for looking into this matter, Ms. Jones, and we look forward to receiving your written interpretation on the "effective projected luminous area".

Respectfully,

WESBAR CORPORATION

C.I. NIELSON III Vice President General Sales Manager

CIN:mm cc: J. Karrenbauer S. Johnston A. Cunningham DOT

(SEE ATTACHMENT...)

ID: nht88-1.74

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/16/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: MORRIS EAST -- ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA BUREAU OF SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: JULY 7, 1987 LETTER FROM EAST TO JONES IS ATTACHED

TEXT: This letter responds to your request for an interpretation of certain Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to school buses. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you state that one of your local school systems intends to remove a bus body from "an existing chassis, and place that body onto a new chassis." You state further that the system's school bus maintenance shop would perform the work. You ask a number of questions which I shall answer in order. My answers as sume that, at a minimum, the engine, drive axles, and transmission of the new chassis are new components.

Question 1: Is it permissible under the (Vehicle Safety Act as amended) for a local school board to remove the body from one school bus chassis and place that body on another school bus chassis?

The answer to this question is "yes." The Act does not prohibit a vehicle owner from altering, modifying, or manufacturing a vehicle; nor has NHTSA established such a prohibition in its regulations.

Question 2: Would this action (in Question 1) violate bus body integrity requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) (specifically FMVSS 208, 220, 221)?

The act of removing a school bus body from one chassis and placing that body on a different chassis does not violate any Federal safety standard. However, when a person uses a new body and mixed new and used chassis components in refurbishing a vehicle, the question arises whether the vehicle is new. In past interpretations, NHTSA has applied @ 571.7(e) to school buses that combine a new body and either (1) mixed new and used chassis components, or (2) used chassis components from different vehicles. If a school bus is considered "new" under the criteria set out in this provision, then the person who refurbishes the vehicle must

certify that the school bus meets all applicable safety standards in effect on the date the chassis was manufactured - including Standards 208, 220, and 221 if they apply - and affix a certification label under 49 CFR Part 567.

On the other hand, if an old bus body is placed on a chassis that is completely new, a different provision applies. In this case, the chassis is an incomplete vehicle. "Incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR @ 568.3 as: an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of a frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the ad dition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

When a new bus chassis meets this description, a subsequent person who adds a body - even an old body - is a final-stage manufacturer, and must certify the completed vehicle as conforming to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as of a d ate no earlier than the manufacturing date of the incomplete vehicle (the new chassis). (49 CFR @ 567.5, Requirements for Manufacturers of Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.)

Neither @ 571.7(e) nor Part 568 would require a person to recertify a school bus when the body and all other vehicle components are not new.

Question 3: If permitted, can the work described in (Question) 1. above be performed in the school board's maintenance shop? Can it be contracted to an automobile dealer capable of performing such work? Can the work be contracted to other motor vehi cle repair shops such as body dealers or private motor vehicle repair shops?

The answer to each of these statements is "yes." Remember, though, that if the refurbished buses are considered new under the criteria discussed in Question 2, they must meet all applicable school bus safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture , and a certification label must be affixed to each refurbished vehicle to that effect.

If the refurbished buses are not "new" under these same criteria, then there is no obligation to recertify the vehicles. However, if a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business works on your buses, then there is restriction on what these commercial businesses can do - even if the vehicle is used. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits these persons from "knowingly rendering inoperative" any device or element of design incorporated into the vehicle in complia nce with an applicable Federal safety standard. Note that this restriction does not apply when the vehicle owner (e.g., a local school system) makes a modification, or if a repair facility that does not hold itself out to the public as being in the busi ness of motor vehicle repair (e.g., a maintenance shop that works only for the school board) makes the modification.

Question 4: If the changeover is allowed, must the new unit (new chassis with used body) be re-certified to meet FMVSS requirements? If it must be re-certified, who may provide the inspection and re-certification?

As I stated in my answers to Questions 2 and 3, under certain circumstances, the vehicle must be recertified by the refurbisher. The refurbisher is responsible for the vehicle's compliance status just as any vehicle manufacturer, and must be able to sho w that he exercised due care in certifying the vehicle. The agency examines issues of due care on a case-by-case basis evaluating all relevant facts. This evaluation would include assessing technological limitations, availability of test equipment, the market position of the manufacturer, and most importantly, the degree of manufacturer diligence.

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: nht88-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON STEENBOCK -- ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, ENGINEERING FWD CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM J. W. LAWRENCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS; OCC 2650

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle leve l. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the t hrottle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicl e acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood yo u to be referring to this type of design.

2

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The pur pose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to ongoing runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

(EXCERPT FROM PRODUCT SAFETY AND LIABILITY REPORT DATED 04/02/88)

Leon Steenbock, administrative manager, FWD Corp., Clintonville, Wis., in a March 17 opinion, that it is not permissible under Standard No. 124 -- Accelerator Control Systems (Reference File, 901:0889) to install a locking hand throttle control in a n ew motor vehicle. These devices are expressly prohibited by the standard, Paragraph S5.1 of that standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose o f the standard is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm the standard was designed to reduce, Jones said.

7/1/87

Subject: FMVSS 124 Accelerator Control Systems

Attn: Erika Z. Jones:

having discussed this standard requirements with your office in the past, as they pertain to locking hand throttles controls, I was left with the interpretation that a vehicle with a locking hand throttle would not meet the requirements of this standard.

As I have never received a written opinion regarding lacking hand throttle controls would your office consider giving me a written opinion of this standard requirement in regards to the use of locking hand throttle controls.

Your earliest consideration would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation

ID: nht88-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/88

FROM: R. C. ROST -- PRESIDENT; MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO.

TO: CHIEF COUNCIL -- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: WE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLOR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L. FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF S CHOOL BUS USER; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FOR FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROUCHERS ON SCHOOL BUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Council:

We request clarification of a matter pertaining to buses sold to Headstart organizations. As a bus dealer we are in a catch 22 situation where no matter what we do it is wrong. According to Department of Transportation Chief Council in 1977 Headstarts must comply as a school bus which would include construction, seats, roof warning lights and all items covered in FMVSS part 571, amended in the federal register (40FR60033) on Dec. 31, 1975.

1. All "school" buses over 10 passenger require roof warning lights whether yellow or non yellow.

2. Regional Headstart in Kansas City, Mr. Frank Magona, 816-426-5401, tells his district roof lights are not required on non yellow headstart buses and it is up to the individual states to set their own regulations and that Headstart does not recognize federal D.O.T. rulings. The same is true of Central Headstart in Atlanta.

3. The State of Iowa D.O.T. and Department of School Transportation say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and cannot have roof warning lights.

J. P. Golinvaux District Representative Iowa Department of Transportation Air and Transit Division State Capitol DesMoines, IA 50319 515-281-4265 Dwight R. Carlson Assistant Chief Bureau of School Adm. and Accreditation Grimes State Office Building DesM oines, IA 50319-0146 515-281-5811

4. The State of Wisconsin Department of School Transportation and Wisconsin D.O.T. say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and can not have roof warning lights.

Mr. Frank Potts Division of Planning Wisconsin Dept. of Transp. Po Box 7913 Madison, WI 53707 Donald Schneider Director School Transportation Supv. Pupil Transportation Po Box 7841 Madison, WI 53707 608-266-2853

5. We have no problem building a bus to meet school safety standards. School standards do not require the bus to be yellow so color is no problem. The only problem is the requirement for roof warning lights on a non yellow bus. If the conflict was no t considered in the previous 1977 ruling we ask that it be considered at this time. Since the buses do not say "school bus" they cannot use the lights to safely stop traffic.

6. What ever your decision we request that you start enforcing your ruling and make public to Headstart, all the states and the bus manufactures what your ruling is.

Since Headstart has several million dollars set aside to buy buses in 1988 we ask you to make this ruling as soon as possible.

Yours truly,

ID: nht88-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers.

This respond to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFa 5571.209). Specifically, you stated that you believe that Standard No. 209 does not specifically address remotely actuated emergency-locking re tractors. You explained that you were referring to retractors that are actuated by a deceleration sensor that is located some distance from the retractor itself. You stated that the existing uncertainty discourage; vehicle manufacturers from considering the introduction of this technology. Additionally your letter claims that it is not clear whether the test procedures in Standard No. 209 are compatible with remote s ensors. NHTSA does not agree that there are existing uncertainties with respect to the applicability of Standard No. 209 to remotely actuated retractors.

The agency first addressed this issue many years back. In a letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota, dated March 16,1973 (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that Standard No. 209 does address the issue of remotely actuated retractors. In that letter, we explained that both the remotely located sensor(s) and the individual solenoids, or other actuating devices on the retractor mechanism itself, would be considered seat belt assembly hardware for the purposes of Standard No. 209. All assembly hardware must be certi fied as complying with the requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 209, including corrosion resistance and temperature resistance. This 1973 letter is still an accurate expression of the agency's opinion on this subject. Accordingly, there is no need to ini tiate rulemaking for Standard No. 209 to "ensure compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept."

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 26, 1988

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On December 1, 1987, representatives from General Motors (GM) and TRW participated in discussions with NHTSA relative to the concept of externally remotely actuated emergency-locking retractors as it might be applied to future seat belt assemblies. At th at time, GM noted that FMVSS 209 does not specifically address a retractor which is actuated by an electrical signal from a remotely located deceleration sensor. This omission introduces a regulatory uncertainty which discourages vehicle manufacturers fr om considering the incorporation of this relatively new technology into their restraint planning. Further, it is unclear whether or not the test procedures contained in FMVSS 249 are compatible with remote sensing. With this letter, we are requesting tha t the agency: 1) provide an interpretation affirming the regulatory permissibility of seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated emergency locking retractors, and 2) initiate rulemaking, if necessary, aimed at ensuring the compatibility of t he FMVSS 209 hardware and assembly test requirements and the remotely actuated seat belt retractor concept.

As the GM representatives noted in the December meeting, a strong case can be made for the position that FMVSS 209 currently provides for the use of remotely actuated retractors. There do not appear to be restrictions in the FMVSS 209 definition of seat belt assembly" which would preclude the use of specific seat belt assembly designs. Further, FMVSS 209 defines an emergency-locking retractor as one, "incorporating adjustment hardware by means of a locking mechanism that is activated by vehicle accelera tion, webbing movement relative to the vehicle, or other automatic action during an emergency and is capable when locked of withstanding restraint forces. We believe that this definition applies to a remotely actuated retractor.

There was general agreement among those in attendance at the December meeting that use of the term "retractor in the FMVSS 209 test procedures that apply (S4.3 and S5.2) could be interpreted logically to be a short hand notation for "retractor sub-system " . Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that neither the regulatory history of FMVSS 209 nor SAE J4c, which served as the basis for FMVSS 209, reference a need to restrict the design of retractors to ones with "built-in " mechanical sensing m echanisms. This view further supports a position that no restrictions have been or were intended to be placed on retractor designs given that the performance requirements of FMVSS 209 could be met.

It is our understanding based on discussions with TRW personnel that remotely actuated retractors can be designed to meet all existing FMVSS 209 performance requirements, including sensitivity. In fact, research to date suggests that the threshold sensit ivity of a retractor actuated by an electrical signal from a remote sensor exceeds that achievable with a retractor which incorporates a built-in mechanical pendulum. Thus, no easing of FMVSS 209 requirements would be needed to enable vehicle manufacture rs to include remotely actuated retractors in their restraint planning. Nor would special considerations be needed to encourage vehicle manufacturers to fully investigate the potential of remote sensing. As noted in TRW's discussion paper which was submi tted to NHTSA after the December meeting (copy attached), remote sensing offers significant potential for retractor downsizing and optimization of retractor locations--important factors in vehicle restraint design. Manufactures may also find further ince ntives when the flexibility offered by retractors which activate by electrical signals from remotely placed sensors is fully analyzed.

GM considers this request to be important because it relates to the compatibility of existing safety requirements with new and emerging technology. It is our understanding that agency policy dictates that its rulemaking not be technology limiting. on tha t basis, we request that NHTSA provide an interpretation that FMVSS 209 currently accommodates seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated retractors. Consistent with such an interpretation, we request that the agency review the hardware and assembly test requirements of FMVSS 209 for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept.

Finally, GM believes that time is of the essence and urges NHTSA to expedite its action on this request. Toward that end, we stand ready to provide any additional information at our disposal that