ID: nht79-2.33

DATE: 12/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ward Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

DEC 7 1979

Mr. E. M. Ryan Ward Industries, Inc. P.O. Box 849 Highway 65 South Conway, Arkansas 72032

Dear Mr. Ryan:

This responds to your October 8, 1979, letter asking whether your new bus design will comply with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release. The window exit that you plan to install in the bus would slide open rather than push out and would be operated by a squeeze-type force application that is parallel to the horizontal centerline of the bus.

Standard No. 217 requires buses to be equipped with emergency exits that comply with a variety of requirements. In the case of window exits, the force application for opening them depends upon the location of the release mechanism. For example, the required force application in the high force access region, according to the standard (S5.3.2), is straight and perpendicular to the exit surface.

In applying the above requirement to your vehicle, it appears that your bus would not comply with the standard. From the pictures that you enclosed with your letter, it appears that your release mechanism falls in the high force access region. If so, the force application for opening the exit is in the incorrect direction as specified by the standard. Further, your bus would use window exits that slide open rather than push out. Although, sliding emergency exits are not prohibited by the standard, they must comply with all of the standard's requirements. Also, they must be capable of complying when the non-exit half of the window is either open or closed. The agency prefers the use of push-out emergency exits, because they are less likely to "bind up" during a side impact than sliding emergency exits.

The standard was written in its present form to provide uniformity of emergency exits in buses. A uniform exit system can help prevent confusion during accidents and facilitate emergency exit of vehicles. The vehicle that you plan to build would be unlike other buses now in operation with respect to emergency exits. The NHTSA does not think that this would be desirable or in the interest of safety.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 8, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admn. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Ref: FMVSS 217 "Bus Window Retention and Release" Paragraph S5.3 and S5.4

Dear Sir:

Ward Industries proposes to incorporate in a new bus design an emergency exit described as a horizontal sliding type. The window consists of two sliding sections, one of which opens large enough to admit unobstructed passage of an ellipsoid as required and described in Paragraph S5.4.1.

The sliding section of this window slides fore and aft and parallel to the longitudinal center line of the bus. The window is not hinged at the top and does not swing out or "push out." It appears that the suggested type of emergency exit would comply with the requirements of FMVSS 217, Paragraph S5.4.1. Will this type of action be acceptable?

The latching mechanism consists of a single latch which holds the sliding section in position. (See enclosed photos.) The release mechanism requires for release a squeeze type application to open. The force application for release is aft and parallel to the horizontal centerline of the bus. Will this type of release mechanism be acceptable?

We would appreciate very much an early reply. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

E. M. Ryan, Specifications Engineering Mgr.

EMR/ws

Enclosures

ID: nht74-1.31

DATE: 02/26/74

FROM: CERSAS FOR E.T. DRIVER, NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc.

COPYEE: J. LEYSATH; MR. VINSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1974, concerning the location requirements of front identification lamps on certain solid-waste disposal vehicles.

You describe the vehicles in question as "short BBC low cab-ever-engine type vehicles -- equipped with a large volume body and a hydraulically operated front leader mechanism. This unit lifts containers of waste up and over the front of the cab and empties the waste into the top of the body. To prevent damage to the front of the vehicle and lamps, a protective guard is installed on the front centerline of the vehicle." You further state that "This guard could obstruct the center identification lamp."

You ask whether or not all three of the front identification lamps may be offset from the front centerline of the vehicle to ensure compliance with the visibility requirements of FMVSS No. 108. In accordance with paragraph S4.3.1. Table II of FMVSS No. 106 specifies that the front identification lamps be located "as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline." For the vehicles which you have described, it would appear that location of the front identification lamps either left or right of the vertical centerline would meet this requirement.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 4, 1974

E.T. Driver -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Operating Systems

Dear Mr. Driver:

Subject: Request for Interpretation MVSS 108

Section S4.1.1 table I states that three identification lamps are required for vehicles of 80 or more inches overall width.

Section S4.3.1 table II requires that "three amber identification lamps be located on the front as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle, at the same height, and as close as practicable to the vertical centerline".

In addition, Section S4.3.1.1 requires that each lamp be located so that it meets the visibility requirements of applicable SAE Standards and that no part of the vehicle shall prevent the device from meeting the photometric output at any test point specified in any applicable SAE Standard.

Section S4.3.1.1 also states that if motor vehicle equipment prevents compliance, an auxiliary lamp or device meeting the requirement shall be provided.

The solid waste disposal industry use short BBC low cab-over-engine type vehicles (see Attachments 1 & 2) equipped with a large volume body and a hydraulically operated front loader mechanism. This unit lifts containers of waste up and over the front of the cab and empties the waste into the top of the body. To prevent damage to the front of the vehicle and lamps, a protective guard is installed on the front centerline of the vehicle. This guard could obstruct the center identification lamp. (See Attachment 3 through 6)

One of our customers has requested that we supply four identification lamps on the forward side of our MB series vehicle cab near the top so that he can mount a protective guard on the centerline of the cab and still meet the visibility and photometric requirements.

As we discussed during my visit of January 31st, use of four lamps will not be acceptable to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as it would defeat the identification function of these lamps for vehicles over 80" in width.

However, it was proposed that all three identification lamps could be moved to one side of the centerline, thereby permitting compliance with the visibility and photometric requirements when the units are in the installed position. This appears to us to be an effective solution to this problem and we, therefore, request your issuance of an interpretation for an installation of this type.

Very truly yours, MACK TRUCKS, INC.; A. M. Fischer -- Asst. to Exec. V.P.- Engineering & Product

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht79-1.13

DATE: 03/22/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Yamaha Motor Corporation USA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 22 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Michael J. Schmitt Counsel, Engineering Division Yamaha Motor Corporation USA P.O. Box 6620 Buena Park, California 90622

Dear Mr. Schmitt:

This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1979, with respect to Yamaha's plan to equip its motorcycles with a hazard warning signal system.

You have cited S4.5.5 of Standard No. 108 which requires that the hazard warning signal "operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch". Because of the ease with which such a switch can be operated on an open vehicle such as a motorcycle by a person other than the vehicle operator, you would like to integrate the warning system with the ignition switch, so that it will flash when the ignition is in the "on" or "off" position, but not the "off-lock" position unless the key is inserted.

As you noted, the Standard does not require that a motorcycle be equipped with a hazard warning system. Should you voluntarily install the system on a motorcycle, there is no legal requirement that it conform to the requirements specified in Standard No. 108. Because of this, although we appreciate your wish to meet the requirements of the standard, we offer no opinion on your system and are willing to defer to your judgment in this matter.

We are confident that Yamaha would not install such a system without insuring that the charging system has an adequate capacity, otherwise, the turn signal system might be viewed as "additional ... motor vehicle equipment ... that impairs the effectiveness" of required lighting equipment, within the prohibition of S4.1.3.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

February 22, 1979

Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

The purpose of this correspondence is to gain a regulatory interpretation from your office relative to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108. Yamaha is exploring the possibility of voluntarily incorporating a hazard warning system for motorcycle application. Hazard warning systems are not required on motorcycles pursuant to FMVSS 108.

FMVSS 108 S4.5.5 requires that the hazard warning signal operating unit "operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch". It is feared that because a motorcycle is not enclosed and that control access cannot be precluded by locking, such as with other vehicles, passerbys may intentionally activate the system. This mischief will discharge the battery and cause unneeded attention which may be adverse to safety.

We would like to inquire as to the permissibility of the following concept. The vehicle will have a three position ignition switch (On, Off, Off-Lock). The hazard warning system will be capable of activation in the On and Off position. The hazard warning system will not operate in the Off-Lock position unless the key is inserted. The steering column is also locked when in this position.

Although such hazard warning devices are not required, we are reluctant to incorporate a system which does not comply with standards applicable to other vehicle types. We believe that motorcycles need such a switch system to preclude unauthorized activation. It is submitted that S4.5.5 is a viable requirement so other vehicle owners can activate the flashers and lock and leave the vehicle. A motorcycle operator under our proposed concept could leave the switch in "Off" position, remove the key, and activate the flasher.

We believe that our concept fulfills the intent underlying S4.5.5. We respectfully solicit your concurrence in this matter.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Schmitt Counsel Engineering Division

MJS:kc

ID: nht79-1.34

DATE: 11/09/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEV Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 9 1979

Mr. H. J. T. Young Vice president - Technical Affairs SEV Corporation 33201 Harper Avenue St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48082

Dear Mr. Young:

This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1979, to Mr. Vinson of this office in which you requested an interpretation of S4.1.1.19 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

S4.1.1.19 states:

A lamp manufactured on or after January 1, 1974 and designed to use a type of bulb that has not been assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating by its manufacturer and is not listed in SAE Standard J573d "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units", December 1968, shall meet the applicable requirements of this standard when used with any bulb of the type specified by the lamp manufacturer, operated at the bulb's design voltage. A lamp that contains a sealed-in bulb shall meet these requirements with the bulb operated at the bulb's design voltage.

It is noted that this paragraph consists of two sentences. You have asked whether the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence are the same "lamp" and "bulb" of the first sentence.

The answer is no. The first sentence would require testing, at the bulb's design voltage, of bulbs used in sealed beam headlamps but not of bulbs used in, for example, taillamps; the former, though listed in J573d (Table 2), is not assigned a mean spherical candlepower rating since these bulbs emit shaped beams while the latter are both listed in J573d and have assigned mean spherical candlepower ratings. However, if the latter is used in the sealed lamp, it is tested at the bulb's design voltage rather than using the rated mean spherical candlepower. Furthermore, the rulemaking history of the paragraph clearly indicates that the two requirements are separate. As the agency noted in the preamble to the proposal, "The proposal specifies that when no rating has been assigned by the bulb manufacturer or the SAE or if the lamp is sealed and the bulb cannot be replaced, the bulb shall be operated at design voltage" (emphasis supplied) (38 FR 16230).

You noted that your question relates to the voltage required by Standard No. 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that utilizes a European halogen bulb that meets ECE Regulation 37.

Since J579c requires the test voltage to be 12.8 volts for all the sealed beam bulbs, the photometric tests should be at 12.8 volts and not at the so-called "system voltage" of 12 volts.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Mr. Taylor Vinson Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 Seventh Street S W WASHINGTON DC 20590 September 24 1979

Dear Mr Vinson

Request for Interpretation

With reference to S4.1.1.19 of FMVSS 108, are the "lamp" and "bulb" of the second sentence the same as these two items referred to in the first sentence, that is to say, is the bulb of the second sentence one to which the two conditions attaching to the bulb of the first sentence also apply?

This question relates to the voltage required by FMVSS 108 for the photometric testing of a sealed beam headlamp that comprises, in part, a "sealed-in bulb" that is an H1, H2, H3 or H4 halogen bulb that bears the E-mark signifying that it is in compliance with E/ECE/TRANS/505/rev.1/Add.36 Regulation 37 of the Geneva Agreement of 20 March 1958 as adopted by the several European governments. Yours sincerely

H J T YOUNG Vice President - Technical Affairs

ID: nht79-1.43

DATE: 01/12/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of November 27, 1978, requesting an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80, Controls and Displays. Specifically, you asked whether it is permissible to use symbols for the parking lamp functions of the headlamp switch, in addition to the headlamp symbols required in Table I of the Standard.

The answer to your question is yes. Section 5 of the standard states that each passenger car "with any control listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1, . . . shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display." Since no symbols or other designations are required under the standard for parking lamps where their control is not combined with that for headlamps or for "lamps-off" positions on controls, it is up to the manufacturer whether to label these additional functions and whether to use words or symbols. Footnote 2 of Table 1 of the standard does provide that a manufacturer must use the single headlamp symbol to designate several functions when clearance, identification, parking and/or side marker lamps are all controlled with the headlamp switch. This footnote was not intended to preclude additional symbols for these other functions, however. In fact, S5.2.1 provides that "additional words or symbols may be used at the manufacturer's discretion for the purpose of clarity."

Regarding your drawings, clearance lamps are listed in paragraph S5.1 and in column 1 of Table 1 of the standard. Therefore, they must be identified by the symbols shown in column 3 of Table 1 or by the words "Clearance Lamps" or "Cl Lps". The "parking right and left" symbol shown on the drawing submitted with your letter would not satisfy the requirements for clearance-lamp designations. However, the symbol labeled "Clearance Lamps" that appears on the drawings which Mr. Gebhard M. Hespeler and Mr. Craig Jones submitted on December 20, 1978, would conform with the requirements. I have enclosed a copy of that drawing.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to write.

SINCERELY,

November 27, 1978

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Chief Counsel

Re.: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Dear Madam or Sir:

Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays, specifies symbols for identifying certain functions of hand-operated controls, but does not address the parking lamp function of the headlamp switch other than the reference contained in Footnote 2 Table I. We suspect this footnote statement is to simplify requirements for providing symbols on those switches, all of whose functional positions cannot readily be identified, such as push-pull switches. An interpretation is therefore requested as to whether or not it is permissable to use additional symbols for the parking lamp functions in addition to the headlamp symbols required in Table I of this standard. An example of such headlamp switch markings is shown in the attached drawing. This rotary switch has the following corresponding functions:

Full counter-clockwise; parking lamps, left-hand side of vehicle, ignition off.

Next position clockwise; parking lamps, right-hand side of vehicle, ignition off.

Vertical/middle position: all lamps off.

Next position clockwise; parking lamps and side marker lamps left and right, - ignition on or off.

Full clockwise; headlamps, parking and side marker lamps.

We would appreciate receiving your interpretation of this standard at your earliest convenience. Do not hesitate to contact this office should you require further information on the switch described.

HEINZ W. GERTH

Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 101-80

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht93-1.14

DATE: January 21, 1993

FROM: Michael Love -- Manager, Compliance, Porsche

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request For Interpretation

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 5/17/94 From John Womack To Michael Love (A42; Std. 102; Std. 101)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Rice:

On June 28, 1988 Porsche submitted a request for interpretation regarding FMVSS 101 and 102 as they applied to a new transmission design. NHTSA responded to that request in a letter dated April 3, 1989. Since that time, Porsche has introduced that transmission as the "Tiptronic (R)" on two models. Porsche is currently considering changes to the method of shifting of this transmission and has several questions regarding the applicability of FMVSS 101 and 102 to those changes.

The current design of the shift lever console and transmission position display in the speedometer is as shown in Figure 1. Porsche is considering three options for changes.

1) As shown in Figure 2, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic (left) side of the shift gate.

2a) As shown in Figure 3, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic side of the shift gate; the gear shift lever can be moved from D to M to select automatic or manual shifting respectively; in the manual mode, gear selection would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switch(es) on the steering wheel.

2b) As shown in Figure 4, eliminate the 3, 2, and 1 positions on the automatic side of the shift gate and eliminate the separate manual side of the shift gate. Once in the D position, the shift lever can be pulled backward to change from automatic to manual gear selection by means of a switch activated in the same manner as the switches in the manual mode of the current Tiptronic. Pulling the lever backwards a second time would change back from manual to automatic gear selection. Once in the manual mode, gear selection would be accomplished not by the shift lever but by shift rocker switch(es) on the steering wheel.

2

In all three options, the speedometer display of transmission position would remain as shown in Figure 1. This display would be the same for all options. The shift lever position selected would be indicated by lighting an arrow ((or)) next to the appropriate symbol, as is done on the current display.

As shown in Figure 1, Porsche currently has gear selection positions 3, 2 and 1 in line with PRND positions. For options 1, 2a and 2b, Porsche believes that it is not necessary to have the shift lever positions 3, 2 and 1, or to necessarily display these positions if selected automatically in the D position, as long as they are displayed when selected manually by use of the shift lever (in option 1) or shift rocker switch(es) (in options 2a and 2b). Does NHTSA concur?

Porsche believes that under options 2a and 2b, both the shift lever and the shift rocker switch(es) would be considered as "shift levers" during the period when they are capable of changing the transmission position. The "shift lever position" would then be defined as the transmission position, or mode of operation, that was selected by manipulation of any combination of "shift levers". It follows then that identification of "shift lever position" would entail identifying the distinct transmission operating modes, in relation to each other and the specific mode selected.

Based on this understanding, we believe that the display as shown in Figure 1, if lighted during the conditions of 571.102 @ 3.1.4.3(a) and (b), fulfills the requirements of @ 3.1.4.4. Does NHTSA concur with this interpretation?

For options 2a and 2b, Porsche believes it is not necessary to illuminate the shift rocker switches, just as it is not necessary to illuminate the shift lever, under provisions of FMVSS 101, as long as the display in the speedometer showing transmission position is illuminated. Does NHTSA concur?

Sincerely,

ID: nht73-2.2

DATE: 08/30/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 18, 1973, concerning the conformity of certain designs of type III seat belt assemblies with Standard No. 209.

The first feature which you describe is a restraint consisting of a waist band with a single shoulder strap. The shoulder strap is attached to the buckle in front and is looped around the waist band in back. Unless this restraint has more elements then you describe, we haver serious questions about its conformity with the requirements for type III seat belts under Standard 209. Section S4.1(c) provides that the assembly must restrain the upper torso without shifting the pelvic restraint into the abdominal region and that the upper torso restraint shall be designed to minimize its vertical forces on the shoulders and spine. It appears doubtful that the described assembly meets either of these requirements.

The second feature you described is a strap through the harness assembly that passes around the seat back and is anchored to the floor by means of the vehicle's seat belt assembly anchorage. Your question appears to be whether such a restraint is a seat back retainer as required by Section S4.1(h). The attachment you describe would not be a seat back retainer under Section S4.1(h).

The third feature described, a closed loop strap without floor attachment would also violate the requirements of S4.1(h), unless it is designed and labelled for use only in specific models having adequate seat back restraints, as specified in that paragraph.

The fourth feature is the ability of a harness to move freely up and down on the restraint strap. This feature is the ability of harness to move freely up and down on the restraint strap. This feature is allowable under Standard 209.

Yours truly,

ELECTRICAL TESTING LABORATORISE, INC.

June 18, 1973

Richard Dyson -- Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Type 3 Seat Belt Assemblies.

Dear Mr. Dyson:

We have recently been asked to perform tests on type III seat belt assemblies, the design of which has caused us some doubt as to their meeting some of the requirements of FMVSS 209. What we would like to know is whether or not the following design features are acceptable under the requirements for type III seat belt assemblies as outlined in FMVSS 209.

1. Upper torso restraint: Restraint consists of single strap starting at the midpoint of the pelvic band (strap around the waist). The anchor point is the buckle tongue hardware. The strap then passes over on shoulder of the child and is terminated in a loop through which the pelvic belt passes freely.

2. Seat Back Retainer: Strap passes through harness assembly around seat in a closed loop and is anchored to the vehicle by a narrow anchor plate using the same bolt as used to secure the seat belt assembly. This installation is performed by the purchaser.

3. Strap: The harness assembly is secured to the seat back by a closed loop strap. No seat back restraint provided.

4. Harness assembly: The harness assembly is secured by either the seat back retainer or strap and is free to move up or down on this section of webbing.

The specimens we have in for test are combinations of the above features and as such we would appreciate knowing what features are acceptable and which are not.

Should you require any additional information on this subject, in relation to the descriptions, please contact either Mr. H. D. Pomponio or myself.

Very truly yours,

C. F. Robb -- Manager, Automotive/Mechanical Division

ID: nht74-5.12

DATE: 03/08/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your February 1, 1974, request for interpretation of Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses, concerning "collapse" in S9.2.8, an incorrect value in Table VI, and proper labeling format.

Your confusion about the meaning of "collapse" in S9.2.8 points out that the requirement was inadvertently changed between notices 7 and 8 and that it should require "no leakage or separation of the inner tube from the fabric reinforcement of the hose". The language will be amended in the near future.

In our response to petitions for reconsideration of Standard 106, we corrected the 5/64 value (question 2) and we accommodated labeling of short hose by permitting labeling separated by any amount up to 6 inches (question 4). You must use one line for labeling required by Standard 106, but you may interrupt the stripe on the opposite side of the required labeling with labeling for other countries, in accordance with S5.2.1 (question 5). In answer to question 3, the fractions should read 3/16, as you indicate you wish to do it.

Your associate, Mr. Hirai, asked our office for an explanation of the certification requirements of S114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as they apply to items of motor vehicle equipment to which a standard applies. I have enclosed a notice of clarification.

ENC.

February 1, 1974

Richard B. Dyson

Assistant Chief Counsel

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: FMVSS 106, Hydraulic Brake Hoses, Docket No. 1-5; Notice 8.

On January 31, 1974, I talked with Miss Grace Robinson, she gave me the information I requested and informed me to send an official letter for confirmation.

Toyo Kogyo has the following question on these regulations:

(Question 1)

Section 9.2.8

"...The vacuum brake hose shall not collapse in a vacuum test of 26 inches of Hg. for 10 minutes." Its' "collapse" may be allowed, if it shall not fully collapse, is this correct?

In section 9.2.6, it shall be allowed with 1/16 inches collapse, with the less severe test condition of 26 inches Hg. and even 5 minutes.

(Question 2)

In table VI dimension of test specimen and feeler gage for deformation tests.

Inside diameter of hose Spec. D (in.) 11/32 inches 3/64 is described, but we think is 11/32 5/64 correct. Is this a misprint?

1) Based on SAE J1403 table 4, 5/64 is correct.

2) Other inside diameter is complete same as the thickness.

(Question 3)

In S9.1 of labeling, may we use the 3/16, (3 and 16 are located in the same line) shape of inside diameter, instead of 3/16?

(Question 4)

In S9.1 of labeling may we describe it with 2 lines?

The length of this labeling shall be assumed with 80mm. We are using 150mm length of hose but in some cases about 55mm length one will be considered in future.

(Question 5)

May we use another labeling on the hose along with the FMVSS 106 labeling?

We are now considering utilizing the hose in another country as well as in the U.S.A.. In that case we want to describe 2-labelings at the same time on the hose. If one more labeling is located on the backside there's no confusion.

Your earliest reply will be appreciated.

Thank you.

Gorou Utsunomiya Branch Manager Toyo Kogyo Co., Ltd. U.SA. Representative Office

cc: Miss Grace Robinson

Dr. Kazushi Sakashita Mr. Eisuke Niguma

ID: nht95-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: June 19, 1995

FROM: Patrick M. Raher -- Hogan & Hartson

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: Request For Interpretation - Seat Positioning Procedure Under FMVSS 208, 214

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 8/31/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO PATRICK M. RAHER (A43; STD. 208)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

In the process of reviewing the requirements contained in the seat positioning procedures of FMVSS 208 and 214 for purposes of providing guidance to one of our clients, we noted that, depending on the interpretation of certain provisions, there is a p otential for as many as three different seating positions that could occur in a dynamic test. Such a situation is unacceptable from a certification and compliance standpoint. Accordingly, we are requesting an interpretation from your office.

FMVSS 208 (S8.1.2) and 214 (S 6.3) specify that "adjustable seats are in the adjustment position midway between the forward most and rear most positions, and if separately adjustable in the vertical direction, are at the lowest position." We have inte rpreted the foregoing to require that the midway point between a seat's maximum forward and maximum rearward position is the point at which the seat in its lowest configuration must be placed for purposes of testing. A question has arisen, however, with respect to power seats which have different maximum seating locations in the forward and rearward position depending on seat height. In such a situation the language of both standards could be interpreted to allow positioning of the seat at other than the true mid-point.

In order to provide you with an indication of the basis for this issue arising, we are enclosing three diagrams indicating driver seat ranges of motion for a power seat type assembly. These diagrams include step-by-step instructions on three possible interpretations of seat positions for adjustable seats prior to dynamic crash testing. We believe that since the seat positions described in all three operations vary because the seat position potential is trapezoidal rather than rectangular, due to th e mechanism utilized in the power seat operation, there are potentially different interpretations of the standards and, therefore, it is appropriate for your office to issue an interpretation clarifying this matter.

The impact of the three options is relatively clear. For example, when option 1 in the attachment is followed, the midway position of the seat is determined by

* raising the seat to its highest position and moving it forward, which is the farthest forward position;

* lowering the seat and moving it to its furthest rearward position; * finding the midway point of these two positions;

* moving the seat to midway position identified by the foregoing calculation

As you can see from Option 2 in the attachment, it is also possible to read the regulation to allow for the same forward and rearward reference points but to move the seat in its upward position to the mid-point and then lower the seat which, because of its mechanical operations, would actually move the seat back from the true midpoint of the seat travel line. Finally, Option 3 in the attachment could lead to a situation where the lowest seat position is used for identifying the forward and rearward most locations and identifying a midpoint. This, we believe is the most unlikely of all three interpretations because it fully ignores the most forward seating position.

In view of the importance of this interpretation to the issuance of proper legal advice under your regulations, we would very much appreciate a prompt interpretation of this question. We are, of course, fully prepared to meet with you or discuss the situation by telephone, to clarify any questions you may have and expedite issuance of a response to this request. We look forward to hearing from the Agency with respect to their interpretation of this matter.

Best regards.

ID: nht91-2.43

DATE: March 22, 1991

FROM: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) Seat Belt Technical Committee

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice -- NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Dan Cohen -- NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; Clarke Harper -- NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; S.R. Kratzke -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel; Alfred J. Fisher, III -- Chairman, AORC Board of Directors; Charles H. Pulley -- President, AORC; Donald P. Reed -- Reed Technical Relations

TITLE: Subject: Request for Interpretation; Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209; Seat Belt Assemblies - S4.1(b)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to H. George Johannessen, P.E. (A38; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT:

The primary purpose of the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (formerly the American Seat Belt Council, organized in 1961) is to reduce highway traffic accident fatalities and injuries by providing the motoring public with the most reliable and effective occupant crash protection systems; and beyond this, by conducting a continuous education program, to promote public acceptance and use of such systems. The membership of the AORC represents 90% of the total domestic seat belt industry and domestic inflatable restraints industry.

Member companies of AORC supply seat belt assemblies produced in compliance with applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 209; Seat Belt Assemblies. A portion of Paragraph S4.1 (b) of FMVSS 209 states that ". . . the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle."

The cited statement first appeared in SAE Standard J4c developed by the SAE Seat Belt Committee and issued in 1965. This SAE standard served as the basis for seat belt standards issued subsequently by the Department of Commerce (National Bureau of Standards) in 15 CFR 9 in 1966 and FMVSS No. 209, issued by the National Highway Safety Bureau in 1967. The SAE Committee included the cited statement as a design goal to alert seat belt designers to give full consideration to this aspect of performance. The committee members were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal. Also, they were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field. The writer was an active member of the cognizant SAE committee and agreed with the committee's decision to include the cited statement as a design goal despite the lack of an objective test protocol to confirm compliance and the recognition that the design goal would not be realized in some collision events. Furthermore, the committee members were aware that there could be no guarantee that the goal would not be thwarted by the vehicle occupant by non-use or misuse of the seat belt or by abnormal position of the belted occupant.

Unfortunately, positioning of the seat belt off the pelvis, for whatever reason, has been cited in recent litigation as prima facie evidence that the seat belt does not comply with the federal standard and the seat belt design is defective. The need to refute the allegations of design defect and non-compliance with applicable standards leads to unnecessary expenditure of time and effort and unconscionable societal costs.

The AORC requests the NHTSA to provide an interpretation that recognizes that off-pelvis location of a Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly before, during or after a real world collision does not per se constitute noncompliance of the seat belt with the federal standard nor does this render the seat belt design defective. Such a formal interpretation is necessary to mitigate unnecessary costs in litigation and the resultant societal costs.

The AORC considers that time is of the essence and requests NHTSA to act as quickly as possible on this request. Personnel from the AORC staff or member companies will be pleased to provide any additional available information that the agency may need.