ID: nht94-4.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: October 4, 1994

FROM: Larry W. Overbay -- Director, Automotive and Support Equipment Directorate, U.S. Dept. of The Army

TO: John Womack -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/17/95 LETTER FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO LARRY W. OVERBAY (A43; STD. 121)

TEXT: We are requesting a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) written response to several questions we have concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 121 and NHSTA Test Procedure TP 121-02. These questions were discuss ed in a telephone conversation between Mr. Dwayne Perrin, NHSTA, and Mr. Richard Kimball, this office, on September 19, 1994.

U.S. Army Combat Systems Test Activity (CSTA) is a test agency for the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command (TECOM). One of the missions of CSTA is to test developmental tactical vehicles. Recently we were requested by U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Com mand (TACOM) to test for a vehicle manufacturer's compliance to FMVSS No. 121.

The vehicle under test is one variant of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV). The vehicle is a three axle truck with a five ton payload capacity and a GVW of 32,000 lbs. According to our test results, the vehicle fails to conform to the re quired emergency, stopping distances. Our test procedures for assessing the performance of the emergency stopping distances involved disconnecting the service air signal line at the rear service air relay. A pneumatic system schematic is provided as an enclosure. This essentially eliminated rear braking during all stops. The vehicle then became totally reliant on the front brakes for stopping.

Preliminary results were reported to TACOM who queried the manufacturer about their nonconformance. The response from the manufacturer stated that the test was invalid since the testing had not been conducted in accordance with the NHTSA Test Procedu re TP 121-02, which recommends rapid bleeding of the vehicle's air reservoirs. TACOM requested CSTA to solicit a NHTSA position on the issue.

We therefore request your position on the following:

a. Is the NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02 the governing document for single point failure testing or does FMVSS No. 121 take precedence?

b. What is the intended purpose of the NHTSA Test Procedure TP 121-02?

C. Does NHTSA consider the removal of the service air signal line (a non-manifolded line which is designed to carry compressed air) from the rear air brake relay valve a valid test of the emergency system requirements under the provisions in FMVSS No . 121.

Due to test schedule constraints, a response within 60 days is requested. We look forward to your reply. The points of contact for our organization are Mr. Richard B. Kimball or Roger C. Link, (410) 278-5152 and (410) 278-4857, respectively.

ID: 09-008774 223

ID: nht91-3.21

DATE: April 15, 1991

FROM: Danny J. Pugh -- Engineering Manager, Special Service Vehicles, Utilimaster Corporation

TO: Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-10-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Danny J. Pugh (A38; Std. 206; Std. 207; Std. 208; Std. 210)

TEXT:

This letter is seeking an interpretation on police vehicle's for the transportation of prisoners and the requirements for safety belts FMVSS 207, 208 and 210 in the prisoner area and door hardware FMVSS 206.

Are police vehicle's required to have seatbelts for prisoners?, if so, what type is required (Type I Lap or Type II 3-Point)? Does this also affect side facing seats?

To insure that prisoners cannot escape from the vehicle, the police market has requested camlock door hardware on rear and side doors. Does this need to meet FMVSS 206?

ID: aiam4870

"Dear Mr. Wakamatsu: This responds to your March 28, 1991, letter t Mr. Scott Shadle of this agency's Rulemaking office, on behalf of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) in Japan. MMC requests approval of its plan for 'derating' the gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of certain imported trucks for the purpose of marketing strategy. Based on the context of the letter, I presume that you mean that MMC would like to lower the GVWR of the vehicles. The following responds to this request. NHTSA is not authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to certify or approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The GVWR assigned to a vehicle by its manufacturer affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions to which the vehicle will be subjected during NHTSA's compliance testing for the vehicle. Generally, NHTSA expects the GVWR to reflect a manufacturer's good-faith evaluation of the vehicle's size, weight, and load carrying capacity. The only regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR Part 567, Certification. Section 567.4(g)(3) provides that the assigned GVWR 'shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity.' There is no regulatory prohibition against a manufacturer lowering the GVWR assigned to its vehicles. Of course, the lower GVWR would have to be not less than the minimum GVWR specified in 567.4(g)(3). Further, the certification label on the vehicle would have to show the lowered GVWR as the GVWR assigned to the vehicle. In addition, the manufacturer must reexamine its certification of compliance for the vehicle to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with all safety standards at this new lower GVWR, and that the vehicle continues to comply with all other NHTSA regulations (such as 49 CFR Part 565, Vehicle Identification Number-Content Requirements) at the lower GVWR. Assuming these conditions would be satisfied, MMC would be permitted to lower the GVWR assigned to these vehicles. I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel";

ID: key-like object

Gerald Plante, General Manager
Fuji Heavy Industries USA, Inc.
PO Box 6000, Subaru Plaza
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-6000

Dear Mr. Plante:

This responds to your inquiry regarding the definition of "key-like object" in relation to the buckle release requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant crash protection. Specifically you asked if the tongue from a safety belt buckle would be considered a "key-like object" for purposes of the standard. As explained below, a buckle tongue would conform to the definition of "key-like object" under the system you described.

On December 8, 2004, we amended FMVSS No. 208 to require all designated seating positions in rear seats, other than side-facing seats, be equipped with Type 2 integral lap/shoulder safety belts (69 FR 70904). For certain folding and removable seats, the standard permits use of a release mechanism that detaches both the lap and shoulder portion at either the upper or lower anchorage point, but not both (See S4.1.5.5.2, S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.4, and S4.2.7.5 of FMVSS No. 208). The standard also specifies that detachment must be by means of a "key or key-like object".

In a phone conversation with Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff, you asked how the agency defines "key-like object". In a follow-up letter you specifically asked whether a tongue from an adjacent buckle would meet the definition of "key-like object".Your letter described a "release mechanism in which the shoulder belt portion [of a safety belt] is detached by inserting the tongue from another belt into a narrow slot".The photographs you provided illustrate a buckle with a narrow slot on the side that would accept the corner of a tongue from another belt.

In specifying the requirement for a "key or key-like object," we were concerned about the potential for inadvertent release of a safety belt. This potential is particularly acute with typical push-button releases, which can be released with the push of a finger. We stated that manufacturers may choose to use the door or ignition key since these keys are always likely to be in the driver's possession when the belt needs to be detached. However, to provide flexibility in design we also permitted use of a "key-like object".

The standard does not define "key-like object", but the preamble to the December 2004 final rule notes that a design in which an object must be inserted into a small hole in order to release a latch would comply with the requirement (69 FR 70908). Although your system has a slot as opposed to a hole, it also requires use of an object other than an occupants finger to release the latch. Under your system, a buckle tongue (or similarly shaped object) must be placed in the appropriate slot to release the latch, and therefore functions as a "key-like object".

The system you described, therefore, would comply with the "key-like object" requirement in S4.1.5.5.2, S4.2.7.2, S4.2.7.4, and S4.2.7.5 of FMVSS No. 208. If you have any additional questions, please contact Mr. Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.616/05

ID: nht89-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 22, 1989

FROM: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TO: DEIRDRE FUJITA -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-20-90 TO HENRY J. NOWAK FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC., AND LETTER DATED 3-16-90 TO BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STD. 213]

TEXT: I am a consultant to Century Products Co. for research, development, testing, and evaluation of child restraint systems. Century Products Co. has designed a sun visor for permanent attachment to the Century Model 580 rear-facing infant restraint system. The purpose of the sun visor is simply to protect the infant from the rays of the sun during travel.

This sun visor is constructed of polyester/cotton material with two polyethelene plastic ribs which hold the polyester/cotton material in-place above the infant's head. The forward plastic rib pivots about the shell and the mid rib pivots about the forw ard rib. The visor material is attached to these two stays but not to the restraint system shell itself. The sun visor is designed so that the polyester/cotton material slips over the rear of the infant restraint and is not permanently attached.

Mr. Stephen Kratzke, Office of Chief Counsel, has provided me with letters of interpretation concerning sun visors. These letters state that sun visors attached to child restraints recommended for use by children under 20 pounds must comply with Section 5.2.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraint Systems when tested according to Section 6.1. Subsequent to receiving these letters of interpretation, a sled test was performed with the Century Model 580 infant res traint with the sun visor in place. During the sled test the sun visor folded back into the storage position and did not contact the infant dummy's head. The sled test was performed in accordance with the requirements of FMVSS 213, S6.1, with the excep tion that the sled pulse exceeded the upper bound of the FMVSS 213 acceleration versus time window, thus assuring that this was a more severe test than NHTSA would perform during the annual testing for enforcement of the standard.

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS 213 with regard to the Century 580 infant restraint system with sun visor. We request a meeting with you along with members of rulemaking and enforcement on Thursday or Frid ay, August 24 or 25, 1989 to provide you with the restraint system, photographs, test data documenting the sled test conditions, and high speed movies of the test which demonstrate the lack of dummy head contact with the sun visor during the sled test.

If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at (716) 892-6313. Our telefax number is (716) 897-0515.

ID: 22492

Mr. David Dobradenka
Quality Manager
IEE Automotive
Zone Industrielle Findel
2b, Route de Treves
L-2632 Luxembourg





Dear Mr. Dobradenka:

This responds to your request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provide you with specific information regarding the possibility of certifying your company's sensor mat to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Protection Systems (FMVSS No. 208), as it was amended last year. Automatic suppression is one means of complying with one aspect of the new advanced air bag requirements that were published on May 12, 2000 (65 FR 30680). You specifically request what the procedure is for certification, whether it can be done on a test buck, the "timing" involved, and whether you must pay for the certification.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code (Motor Vehicle Safety) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Chapter 301 prohibits any person from manufacturing, introducing into commerce, selling, or importing any new motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment unless the vehicle or equipment item is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. NHTSA does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Chapter 301 establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

With one exception that is not relevant to your product, FMVSS No. 208 applies only to new vehicles, not to items of individual equipment. Thus, it is the vehicle manufacturer's responsibility to certify compliance with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 208. We note that many vehicle manufacturers require their equipment vendors to provide them with data that they can use in certifying their vehicles. This is a contractual obligation between two private parties, and NHTSA does not involve itself in these business arrangements.

Because manufacturers are responsible for self-certification, we do not require any payment to the Federal government. Likewise, NHTSA does not require that any particular procedure be followed. However, we purchase vehicles and test whether a certified vehicle complies with the requirements of FMVSS No. 208 by following the test procedure detailed in that regulation. While a manufacturer may certify based on another test procedure, using NHTSA's test procedure is the best way for a manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles comply with all applicable requirements.

I hope this addresses all your concerns. For your general information, I am enclosing a copy of NHTSA's white paper on information for new manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Should you have additional questions, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, at the above address or at (202)366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.5/16/01

ID: GF003147

Kenneth M. Bush, Associate Director
Government Relations
American Suzuki Motor Corporation
3251 East Imperial Highway;
PO Box 1100
Brea, CA 92822-1100




Dear Mr. Bush:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the procedures the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would follow for locating "Point 1" described in S10.1(a) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Occupant protection in interior impact. You provide an illustration and two different interpretations of these procedures.

By way of background, FMVSS No. 201 requires that vehicles meet certain performance criteria when specific targets in the interior are struck by an instrumented headform representative of a human head. When NHTSA performs compliance testing, it does so in accordance with testing procedures specified in FMVSS No. 201. With respect to targets located on the A-pillar, the agency would perform testing using the target location procedure in S10.1.

In order to locate "Point 1" described in your letter, the agency would follow the following procedure described in S10.1(a):

"On the vehicle exterior, locate a transverse vertical plane (Plane 1) which contacts the rearmost point of the windshield trim. The intersection of Plane 1 and the vehicle exterior surface is Line 1. Measuring along the vehicle exterior surface, locate a point (Point 1) on Line 1 that is 125 mm inboard of the intersection of Line 1 and a vertical plane tangent to the vehicle at the outboardmost point on Line 1 with the vehicle side door open"

NHTSA locates "Point 1" by measuring inboard, along the nominal vehicle exterior surface, 125 mm from the intersection of "Line 1" and the outermost edge of the roof, with the door open. "Line 1" is established by locating a transverse vertical plane (Plane 1) that is perpendicular to the vehicle longitudinal plane, which contacts the rearmost point of the windshield trim. We note that the outermost edge of the roof is determined with the door open and includes uncompressed weather stripping, rain gutter, or other trim components. NHTSA makes linear measurements following the nominal vehicle surface (as opposed to following each convolution of weather stripping, rain gutter or other trim components). See Laboratory Test Procedure for FMVSS No. 201U (TP-201U-01, April 3, 1998, pages 37 and 38 at www.nhtsa.gov), and the enclosed illustration.

In your letter and accompanying illustration, you offer two interpretations for the location of "Point 1." The difference between the two interpretations appears to stem from the location of the outboardmost point on Line 1; i.e., the intersection of Plane 1 and the vehicle exterior surface. As explained above, that intersection is located at the outermost edge of the roof, with the door open. After examining your illustration, we believe that this intersection is marked "point *2."

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact George Feygin of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:201
d.7/14/05

ID: nht95-6.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JIM BURGESS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10931)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door retention components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

Side doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not conform to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude wheelchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriate.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-3.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 4, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Jim Burgess -- Engineering Manager, Independent Mobility Systems, Inc.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 5/18/95 LETTER FROM JIM BURGESS TO WALTER MYERS (OCC 10931)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Burgess:

This responds to your letter of May 18, 1995 to this office and your telephone conversations with Walter Myers of my staff on June 14 and 27, 1995, concerning an exclusion in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 206, Door locks and door rete ntion components. The standard excludes from its requirements doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and either a visual or audible alarm system.

You state that your company converts minivans into wheelchair accessible vehicles by lowering the floor and adding a wheelchair ramp to the right rear side sliding door area, with an audible and/or visual alarm. The issue you raise is whether FMVSS No. 206's exclusion of wheelchair-equipped doors also excludes a ramp-equipped door. The answer is no.

FMVSS No. 206 requires that side doors leading directly into a compartment containing one or more seating positions must conform to the standard. However, paragraph S4 of the standard states:

Side doors equipped with wheelchair lifts and which are linked to an alarm system consisting of either a flashing visual signal located in the driver's compartment or an alarm audible to the driver which is activated when the door is open, need not confo rm to this standard.

FMVSS No. 206 was amended to add the wheelchair lift exception by final rule dated March 27, 1985 (50 FR 12029, copy enclosed). The agency's rationale was that when not in use, wheelchair lifts are stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the interior surface of the vehicle door, thus providing a barrier to occupant ejection if the door opened while the vehicle was in motion or in the event of a crash. The alarm requirement was intended to alert the driver to a door that was open on a vehicle that was in motion.

While the information you provided us showed that your wheelchair ramp is also stowed in a vertical position parallel to and in close proximity to the door and that you install audible and/or visual alarms for the driver, wheelchair lifts and wheelchair ramps are distinctly different components. Although they serve the same purpose and are similarly configured when in the stowed position, this agency cannot by interpretation say that "lift" includes "ramp." In order to amend the standard to exclude whe elchair ramps as well as lifts, rulemaking action would be required. You may petition this agency to do rulemaking, under 49 CFR Part 552 (copy enclosed). This agency will entertain your petition and decide whether a rulemaking proceeding is appropriat e.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.