ID: nht76-1.34

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Pirelli Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I am writing in response to your March 12, 1976, letter to Mr. Robert Aubuchon of this agency, concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, to motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 mph or less.

You have inquired whether such vehicles may be equipped with tires that --

(i) "Carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH -- S.6.5."

(ii) "Have passed the endurance test -- S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III -- speed restricted service: 35 MPH"

(iii) "have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 -- in fact they are speed restricted . . ."

and otherwise comply with the requirements of Standard No. 119.

I assume that, where your letter refers to the marking "MAX SPEED", you intended "MAX SPEED 35 MPH". Although such labeling is not prohibited, the standard does not presently recognize a category of speed-restricted motorcycle tires. Tires for motor driven cycles are subject to the same performance requirements as other motorcycle tires. In particular, the schedule for endurance testing is that found in the "motorcycle entry of Table III, rather than the "35 m.p.h." entry. Similarly, these tires are subject to the high speed performance requirements of S.6.3 without exception. An amendment of Standard No. 119 on this subject is being considered, but no firm decision has been made.

Standard No. 119 prohibits the manufacture of the tires that you have described on and after March 1, 1975. Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars, prohibits the manufacture of motor-driven cycles equipped with such tires on and after September 1, 1976.

SINCERELY,

PIRELLI TIRE CORPORATION

March 12, 1976

NHTSA

Att: Robert Aubuchon

In reference to the phone conversation of March 9, 1976, we would like to have the following Information:

1) Is it permissible (with respect to the safety requirments stated in Standards 119 and 120) to equip motor driven cycles whose speed attainable in 1 mile is 30 MPH or less (see definitions R571 paragraph 571.3 - B and references in part 571, ST 123 - PRE 5 ST 108 - S.4.1.1 26/27, St 122 - S.5.4/S/5.5) with tires meeting the requirements of Standard 119 inasmuch as they:

a) are indicated in ETRTO data book S.5.1.B

b) carry all the inscriptions required by labeling, plus the marking "MAX SPEED" because speed restricted to less than 55 MPH - S.6.5.

c) have tread wear indicators S.6.4

d) have passed the strength test - S.6.2., S.7.3, in accordance with tables I and II - plunger 5/16

e) have passed the endurance test - S.6.1, S.7.2 in accordance with table III - speed restricted service: 35 MPH

f) have not been tested for high speed S.6.3 - in fact they are speed restricted, moreover they may be included in the requirements of Standard 120 - see paragraphs: S.2, S.5.1.1, S.5.1.2, S.5.3. D"

N.B. There is no indication anywhere in Standard 119 and 120 that the speed restrictions apply only to trucks.

2) As discussed by phone, we have requested that a copy of the letter sent by ETRTO to the DOT be forwarded to you as soon as possible. We would appreciate if you would look into this matter and inform us of the outcome.

Thanking you in advance for a prompt reply, we remain

Francesa Robinsons for Mr. Buzzi

G. Buzzi-Ferraris Technical Manager

Industrie Pirelli spa

MARCH 15, 1976

Robert Aubuchon N.H.T.S.A. Office of Standard Enforcement

We have been informed by Pirelli Tire Corporation N.Y. your request for a copy of the ETRTO Submission to NHTSA concerning an amendment to FMVSS 119 and precisely 'Tyres for low-power motorcycles with restricted speed capability'.

A copy of it is here with enclosed.

Recently, February 26th, Mr. Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel of NHTSA has promised to Mr. Trimble, ETRTO General Secretary, that a Federal Register notice on the subject will be issued in the near future.

(P.G. Malinverni) Tyre Standardization

EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANISATION

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

RD/MS 048/75

SUBMISSION N degree 6/119

FMVSS 110 - TYRES FOR LOW-POWER MOTORCYCLES WITH RESTRICTED SPEED CAPABILITY

In the preamble to Docket 71-18 Notice 6, published in the Federal Register Volume 39, No.29 dated Monday February 11th 1974, page 5192, reference was made to an E.T.R.T.O. proposal for new test values for certain motorcycle tires, which proposal was deemed to be "unclear as to the meaning . . . "

For convenience of reference the paragraph in question is quoted as follows:

"The E.T.R.T.O. proposed new test values for some motorcycle tires, but the request was unclear as to the meaning of the 62 mph criterion and the unsupported request cannot be granted. If in future, the E.T.R.T.O. petitions for rule making to revise the table, an explanation of the criterion and a justification for the test values would permit an informed decision."

In response to the invitation, implicit in this paragraph, to E.T.R.T.O. to petition "for rule making to revise the table" by submitting explanation and justification of its requirements E.T.R.T.O. submits the following petition for consideration on this subject.

FMVSS 119 recognises all data standardised by the various international and national standards organizations (Illegible Words) (Illegible Line) (Illegible Words) in tables II (strength) table III (endurance) and in paragraph S7-1 (high speed).

In accordance with the "invitation" instanced (Illegible Word) ETRTO formally requests reconsideration of the requirements of Standard 119 insofar as two categories of light motorcycle tires are concerned, these being the speed-restricted ranges of such tires listed on pages (Illegible Word) through 119 of the 1974/75 E.T.R.T.O. Data-book.

In requesting certain (Illegible Word) from the terms of Standard 119, E.T.R.T.O. is evoking (Illegible Words) which resulted in amendments to the requirements of (Illegible Words) 122 (Illegible Word) 123, as published in the Federal Register Vol. 39 No. 72 (Illegible Words) 12th 1974, in that the existing Standard 119 is "not reasonable, (Illegible Words) appropriate" to the light motorcycle tires in question.

a) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles With Speed Capability up to 50 mph

These tires are especially designed to be fitted to motor-driven cycles with a (Illegible Words).

They can be recognised from having the word "Moped" (or alternatively "Cyclomoteur", or "Ciclomotore" or "Circlomotor") in the vicinity of the (Illegible Word) designation (e.g. (Illegible Word) - 17 Moped).

E.T.R.T.O. requests that for tires to be mounted on motor-driven cycles with a top speed capability of 30 mph of less, tires known as moped tires in Europe and with a speed restriction of 30 mph, the following specifications be adopted:

1. Strength: the minimum static breaking energy should be the one allowed for rayon cord tires even for other types of cords such as cotton, which is widely used for this tire range and which has breaking energy properties almost identical to rayon.

2. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 100 rpm

The test leads could be (in percent of maximum lead rating): 100% for 4 hours, 108% for 6 hours and 117% for 24 hours.

3. High Speed Test: no high speed test will apply to these tires since they are "speed restricted".

4. Treadwear Indicators: in view of the low speed usage and the fact that these tires have very shallow tread patterns, (circa 3 mm) similar to cycle tires, E.T.R.T.O. (Illegible Word) that the requirement to add treadwear indicators at 1/32" (0,8 mm) is unrealistic and against the interests of the consumer.

b) Tires for Small Cubic Capacity Motorcycles up to 60 mph (or 100 km/h)

This is the category of tires previously referred to as "up to 62 mph", this being strictly equivalent speed to 100 km/h.

These tires are specially designed to be fitted on lightweight motorcycles with maximum speed not exceeding 60 mph.

(Illegible Line) is considered that a (Illegible Words) rating for these tires (Illegible Words) in a restricted-speed category. In consequence E.T.R.T.O. requested (Illegible Word) (Illegible Lines)

1. Endurance: the test wheel speed should be 200 rpm, the test load in percent of maximum load rating 100 for 4 hours, 108 for 6 hours, 117 for 24 hours

2. High Speed: since the first step of the high speed test is 375 rpm equivalent to a speed on highway largely in excess of 75 mph and that speed is higher than the maximum allowed for the tire we would propose that category to be considered a speed restricted category therefore the high speed test will not be necessary for them.

3. Treadwear Indicators: for the reasons outlined in paragraph (a) (4) above the requirement for treadwear indicators be waived for this range of tires.

c) For case of consideration of these requests it should be noted tha the (Illegible Line) ranges of (Illegible Words) -speed motorcycle tires by their size designation as follows: (i) light motorcycle tires, 30 or 60 mph category - the size designations are in inches and fractions of an inch e.g. 2 1/2 - 17.

(ii) unrestricted speed motorcycle tires - the size designations are in inches and decimals e.g. 2.75 - 17.

E.T.R.T.O. requests that early consideration be given to this petition in order that appropriate steps may be taken for implementation prior to the March 1st 1975 effective date of Standard 119.

Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration of the matter,

R. DERESSON General Secretary

ID: 1984-1.1

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/84 EST

FROM: FLORIDA LEGISLATURE

TITLE: 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/25/90, FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; A35; VSA 108 [A] [2] [A]; STANDARD 205; LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR-WINDOW TINTERS-LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA.

TEXT: An act relating to state uniform traffic control; creating ss. 316.2951 through 316.2957, Florida Statutes; providing definitions; providing requirements with respect to motor vehicle windshields; providing requirements with respect to motor vehicle side windows; providing requirements with respect to all windows behind the driver; providing sunscreen requirements; providing requirements with respect to labeling, providing tolerance levels; providing penalties; providing exemptions; repealing s. 316.295, Florida Statutes, relating to motor vehicle windshield requirements; repealing s. 316.296, Florida Statutes, relating to the prohibition against selling a motor vehicle equipped with windows which are reflective or nontransparent; repealing s. 316.297, Florida Statutes, relating to the prohibition against selling reflective or nontransparent material for motor vehicle windows; repealing s. 316.298, Florida Statutes, relating to exemptions for manufacturers with respect to motor vehicle windows; providing an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:

Section 1. Sections 316.2951, 316.2952, 316.2953, 316.2954, 316.2955, 316.2956 and 316.2957, Florida Statutes, are created to read:

316.2951 -- Motor vehicle windows; definitions -- Whenever used in ss. 316.2951 . 316.2957, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

(1) "Sunscreening material" means products or materials, including film, glazing, and perforated sunscreening, which, when applied to the windshield or windows of a motor vehicle, reduce the effects of the sun with respect to light reflectance or transmittance.

(2) "Reflectance" means the ratio of the amount of total light, expressed in percentages, which is reflected outward by the product or material to the amount of total light falling on the product or material.

(3) "Transmittance" means the ratio of the amount of total light, expressed in percentages, which is allowed to pass through the product or material, including glazing, to the amount of total light falling on the product or material and the glazing.

(4) "Motor vehicle" means any vehicle as defined in s. 316.003, except vehicles used in farm husbandry, which is registered or required to be registered in the state.

(5) "Windshield" means the front exterior viewing device of a motor vehicle.

(6) "Window" means any device designed for exterior viewing from a motor vehicle, except the windshield, any roof-mounted viewing device, and any viewing device having less than 150 square inches in area.

(7) "Multipurpose passenger vehicle" means a motor vehicle with motive power designed to carry ten persons or less which is constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

316.2952 -- Windshields; requirements; restrictions. --

(1) Windshields in a fixed and upright position, equipped with safety glazing as required by federal safety glazing material standards, are required on all motor vehicles which are operated on the public highways, roads, and streets, except motorcycles and implements of husbandry.

(2) No person shall operate any motor vehicle on any public highway, road, or street with any sign, suncreening material, produce, or covering attached to or located in or upon the windshield, except the following:

(a) A certificate or other paper required to be displayed by law.

(b) Sunscreening material along a strip at the top of the windshield, so long as such material is transparent and does not encroach upon the driver's direct forward viewing area as more particularly described and defined in FMVSS 205 and FMVSS 128 as the AS/1 protion of the windshield.

(3) The windshield on every motor vehicle shall be equipped with a device for cleaning rain, snow, or other moisture from the windshield, which device shall be constructed as to be controlled or operated by the driver of the vehicle.

(4) Every windshield wiper upon a motor vehicle shall be maintained in good working order.

(5) Grove equipment, including "goats," "highlift-goats," grove chemical supply tanks, fertilizer distributors, fruit-loading equipment, and electric-powered vehicles regulated under the provisions of s. 316.267, shall be exempt from the requirements of this section. However, such electric-powered vehicles shall have a windscreen approved by the department sufficient to give protection from wind, rain, or insects, and such windscreen shall be in place whenever the vehicle is operated on the public roads and highways.

316.2953 -- Side windows; restrictions on sunscreening material. -- No person shall operate any motor vehicle on any public highway, road, or street on which the side wings and side windows on either side forward of or adjacent to the operator's seat are composed of, covered by, or treated with any sunscreening material or other product or covering which has the effect of making the window nontransparent or which would alter the window's color, increase its reflectivity, or reduce its light transmittance, except as expressly permitted herein. A sunscreening material may be applied to such windows if, when tested on 1/8-inch clear glass, the material has a total solar reflectance of visible light of not more than 25 percent as measured on the non-film side and light transmittance of at least 35 percent in the visible light range.

316.2954 -- All windows behind the driver; restrictions on sunscreening material. --

(1) No person shall operate any motor vehicle on any public highway, road, or street with any windows behind the driver which are composed of, covered by, or treated with any sunscreening material, or other product or material which has the effect of making the window nontransparent or would alter the window's color, increase its reflectivity, or reduce its light transmittance, except as specified below:

(a) Sunscreen material consisting of film which, when tested on 1/8-inch clear glass, has a total solar reflectance of visible light of not more than 35 percent as measured on the non-film side and light transmittance of at least 18 percent in the visible light range; provided, however, that sunscreen material may be used on multipurpose passenger vehicles, which, when tested in 1/8-inch clear glass, has a total solar reflectance of visible light of not more than 35 percent as measured on the non-film side and light transmittance of at least 8 percent in the visible light range.

(b) Perforated sunscreening material which, when tested in conjunction with existing glazing or film material, has a total reflectance of visible light of not more than 35 percent and light transmittance of no less than 30 percent. For those products or materials having different levels of reflectance, the highest reflectance from the product or material will be measured by dividing the area into 16 equal sections and averaging the overall reflectance. The measured reflectance of any of those sections shall not exceed 50 percent.

(c) Louvered materials, if the installation of the materials does not reduce driver visibility by more than 50 percent.

(d) Privacy drapes, curtains and blinds, provided such covering shall be in an open and secure position when the motor vehicle is being operated on any public highway, road, or street.

(2) No person shall operate any motor vehicle upon any public highway, road or street, on which the rear window is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material which has the effect of making the window nontransparent, unless the vehicle is equipped with side mirrors on both sides that meet the requirements of s. 316.294.

316.2955 -- Window sunscreening material; compliance labeling; tolerances. --

(1) Each installer or seller of sunscreening material shall provide a pressure sensitive, self-destructive, nonremovable, vinyl-type film label to the purchaser stating that the material complies with the provisions of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2954. Each installer shall affix the required label to the inside left door jamb of the motor vehicle. In addition, the label shall state the trade name of the material and the installer's or seller's business name. Labeling shall not be required for factory glazing which complies with FMVSS 205.

(2) All percentage measurements required by ss. 316.2951 - 316.2954 shall be subject to a plus or minus 3 percent tolerance.

316.2956 -- Violation of provisions relating to windshields, windows, and sunscreening material; penalties. --

(1) Any person who operates a motor vehicle on which, after the effective date of this act, material was installed in violation of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2954, is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.084.

(2) Replacement or repair of any material legally installed is not a violation of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2954.

(3) Any person selling or installing sunscreening material in violation of any provision of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2955 after the effective date of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

316.2957 -- Exemption for motor vehicle manufacturers. -- The provisions of ss. 316.2951 - 316.2956 shall not apply to the manufacturer's tinting or glazing of motor vehicle windows or windshields which is otherwise in compliance with or permitted by FMVSS 205 as promulgated in 49 C.F.R. 571.205.

Section 2. Sections 316.295, 316.296, 316.297, and 316.298, Florida Statutes, are hereby repealed.

Section 3. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.

ID: nht94-7.30

DATE: March 22, 1994

FROM: Gerald J. Gannon -- Attorney, GM Legal Staff

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice, Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Stanley Scheiner - Office of Market Incentives; Barbara A. Gray - Office of Market Incentives; Charles W. Babcock, Esq. - General Motors Legal Staff; Milford R. Bennett - General Motors Safety Center; Richard F. Humphrey - General Motors Safety Center; Lorenzo B. Perkins - General Motors Safety Center

TITLE: FMVSS 114 - Automatic Transmission Park-Lock Override

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9-16-94 letter from John Womack to Gerald Gannon (A42; STD. 114)

TEXT: This letter requests the opinion of the Chief Counsel's Office on this question: did the agency intend to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision must prevent steering after removal of the key in order to have an ignition key-operated transmission shift override device? Uncertainty results from provisions added to FMVSS 114 on March 26, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 12464, 12469) that were basically continued on January 17, 1992 (57 Fed. Reg. 2039).

BACKGROUND

May 30, 1990

The agency amended FMVSS 114 to require vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" position to have a key-locking system that prevents removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. "The amendment is intended to reduce the potential for accidents caused by shifting the transmission lever on parked vehicles with automatic transmissions.", by children (55 Fed. Reg. 21868). In the Preamble the agency approved of an ignition key-operated manual override device:

"The agency has decided that a superior approach is to permit a manual override to the electrical shift system, but only if such an override has to be operated by the key used to control the vehicle." (emphasis added)

(Id. at 21873, left column)

Use of such a key-operated override device was not limited to a vehicle whose steering is prevented after removal of the key.

March 26, 1991

Responding to petitions for reconsideration of the Final Rule, the agency amended the above Final Rule primarily to permit certain key-less override devices so that in the event of electrical failure the ignition key can be removed or the transmission shifted out of "park". This was done because in the event of a battery failure certain vehicle designs would not permit removal of the key from the ignition or shifting the transmission from "park" to facilitate towing. At the same time the agency attempted to add to the regulation permission to use the previously approved ignition key-operated override device (56 Fed. Reg. 12464).

The Preamble to that response states:

One way to prevent access by children and thus vehicle roll-away is to permit an override that is operable only by the vehicle's key because this typically ensures that the override is being activated by an authorized user. The preamble to the final rule explained that such a key-operated override was permissible. Based on the apparent confusion caused by not expressly stating this in the regulatory text, upon reconsideration, the agency has modified Standard No. 114 so that section S4.2.2(b) now states that the means for activating the override device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3 of the standard.

...

The agency emphasizes that the amendment permits a key-less emergency override only if theft protection is ensured by a steering lock. (emphasis added)

(Id at 12466, 12467)

S4.2.2(b) was added to permit moving the automatic transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key from the ignition by activating an emergency override device. If the device is activated by the key, as defined in S3, the device need not be covered. If there is a key-less device, the device must be "covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool."

The Preamble to that Final Rule suggests the phrase "provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed" was inadvertently placed as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed. The means for activating the device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3. The device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added)

(Supra at 12469)

However, to be consistent with the Preamble concern about theft protection for only a key-less override device, the phrase should have been located as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key. The means for activating the device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3. Provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, the device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added)

January 17, 1992

In response to Toyota and Honda's petitions for reconsideration of the March 1991 rule the agency stated "the notice further amends the requirements to provide manufacturers appropriate flexibility while continuing to meet the need for safety" and delayed until September 1, 1993 "the requirement for inaccessibility for the emergency release button on the transmission shift override device". The increased flexibility expressly allows releasing a key in any gear shift position in the event of battery failure. The delay of the requirement to cover a key-less transmission shift override device was intended to help manufacturers unable to meet the September 1, 1992 effective point. (57 Fed. Reg. 2039-40)

At that time the agency reiterated:

The May 1990 final rule permitted only key-based override systems. In response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA also decided to permit key-less overrides that are not visible and are "child-proof". . . . Accordingly, the agency decided to permit key-less override devices only if they are covered by a non-transparent device which, when in place, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool.

(Supra at 2040)

With respect to transmission shift override devices the Final Rule resulting from that rulemaking states:

S4.2.2(b) is revised to read as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which, when installed, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

(Supra at 2043 - emphasis added))

OUR INTERPRETATION

We believe that the agency intended to continue to permit use of an ignition key-operated shift override device in all vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision. We do not believe that the agency for the first time intended, without comment, to limit a shift override device "operated by the key used to control the vehicle" only to vehicles whose steering is prevented when the key is removed from the ignition. Although the steering prevention concern expressed in the Preamble was confined to key-less shift override devices, the Final Rule might be interpreted to limit even an override device operable by the ignition key to a vehicle whose steering is prevented when the key is removed. However, since an ignition key-operated shift override device requires use of that key, it could also be argued that the key is no longer removed from the vehicle, and is required to be used by someone who is authorized and therefore steering need not be prevented.

SUGGESTION

In the event that the agency concurs with my interpretation, in some future rulemaking the agency may also wish to clarify the regulation as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or, provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, by another means which, when installed, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

CONCLUSION

General Motors would like the flexibility to offer automatic transmission-equipped vehicles with a "park" position and an ignition key-operated shift override device in vehicles that would only prevent forward self-mobility after key removal as allowed by FMVSS 114 S4.2(b). Repeated Preamble comments regarding such a key-operated override device would permit this design. Your concurrence with this interpretation would be appreciated.

As always, we are prepared to discuss this matter further with you. If there are any questions, please contact me at (313) 974-1610.

ID: nht76-4.28

DATE: 09/03/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Frehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 17, 1976, question whether the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the "no lockup" performance is provided by means of an antilock system. Sections S5.3.1 (trucks and buses) and S5.3.2 (trailers) specify that the vehicle shall, under various load, road surface, and speed conditions, be capable of stopping

. . . without lockup of any wheel at speeds above 10 mph, except for:

(a) Controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system. . .

(b) * * * * *

This basic requirement is stated in performance terms, permitting a manufacturer to choose any brake system design that will ensure that the wheels do not lock up under the specified conditions.

The exception to the "no lockup" requirement set forth above permits "controlled lockup of wheels allowed by an antilock system." Manufacturers demonstrated, during the course of rulemaking, that properly functioning antilock systems might be designed to allow wheel lockup for a fraction of a second, and that antilock design should not be inhibited by a prohibition on all lockup. The agency made the "controlled lockup" exception a part of the standard (36 FR 3817, February 27, 1971) and has subsequently interpreted the term to permit manufacturers latitude in the design of their systems.

2

In compliance with the basic requirement, most manufacturers have equipped each axle of a vehicle with a valve to regulate the air pressure that applies the brakes, sensors at each wheel to send a signal when a wheel is locking up, and a logic module that receives the signals and instructs the valve when to release air pressure to prevent lockup ("axle-by-axle control"). Recently, some manufacturers have simplified their systems by utilizing only one valve and logic module to modulate the air supply to both axles of the typical tandem axle system found on many trucks and trailers ("tandem control"). Two approaches to wheel sensor placement have been used for tandem control systems. If it is possible to predict which of the two axles will lock first during braking, sensors may be placed on this axle only, knowing that reduced air pressure in response to a signal from the "sensed" axle will also release the brakes on the "unsensed" axle. In other cases, where it is not possible to predict which axle will lock first, tandem control systems may have sensors on all four wheels of the tandem.

In November 12, 1974, and March 7, 1975, letters of interpretation to Dana Corporation, the NHTSA confirmed that a manufacturer may choose the number of wheel speed sensors and logic modules that he includes in his antilock system. Thus, tandem control is not prohibited by the standard, regardless of the number of wheel speed sensors provided. When Dana asked if lockup on the unsensed axle of a single-axle sensor system would qualify for the "controlled lockup" exception of the requirement, the agency said that it would not, reasoning that the logic module would not exert effective control over the lockup of the unsensed axle without benefit of input signals from wheels on that axle. Therefore, according to the Dana interpretation, the unsensed axle in a single-axle sensor system could not be allowed to lock at all, even momentarily, during the service brake stopping test. No data of actual performance was submitted with the Dana letter.

Your letter argues that the NHTSA's interpretation of "controlled lockup" (to Dana Corporation) creates an anomalous and unjustified restriction on the use of "tandem control." Your submission, and data received by the agency from other interested persons, demonstrate that the Dana interpretation does not adequately reflect the degree of control which a single-axle sensor system actually can exert over the unsensed axle of a tandem system. Based on analysis of the submitted data, it appears that the amount of lockup permitted on unsensed axles is closely controlled by the available antilock systems. While there is a measurable difference in stopping performance between "axle-by-axle"

3

control and "tandem control," the standard already permits either of these means to satisfy the requirements. When the narrower question of the performance difference between sensors on one or both axles is analyzed, it is apparent that virtually no difference exists in the stopping distance of vehicles equipped these two ways. The effective lateral stability available during a stop also appears comparable regardless of placement of sensors on one or both axles. A technical report summarizing these findings will be placed in the public docket as soon as possible.

For this reason, and based on review of test data unavailable at the time of the Dana interpretation, the agency concludes that its interpretation of "controlled lockup" in response to the question posed by Dana should be, and is hereby, withdrawn. It is the agency's interpretation that the "controlled lockup" exception is not dependent on the number or location of sensors used in an antilock installation.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

FRUEHAUF DIVISION / FRUEHAUF CORPORATION

August 17, 1976

Chief Counsel NHTSA Gentlemen:

RE: 49 CFR 571.121

In our evaluation of anti-lock systems, Fruehauf has become convinced that a considerable economic improvement can be made in the system provided for FMVSS 121. A system involving sensors on one axle, a logic controlling that axle, and a second axle of the suspension controlled by the same logic, performs identically to a system on the same suspension that uses sensors on each wheel and a logic for each axle. The economic gains for trailer users is very attractive. This system conforms with the 121 standard in its entirety and no change in the standard is requested.

We have exhibited in many tests, that our suspension provides mechanical control of lock-up. The momentary lock-up of the second axle of the suspension is always initiated at a slightly later time than the front axle. When we use an air and electrical system as described above, we can assure that the release of air to the two axles is simultaneous. Therefore, the second axle performance in lock-up is equal to or slightly better than the first axle. See charts in Appendix B of typical tests.

Both axles are under the control of an anti-lock system. The control is such that any momentary lock-up on the axle without sensors is equal to or shorter than momentary lock-up with sensors. This is possible through the geometry of the suspension. The suspension has equal loads on the axles at rest. However, with the application of brakes, one axle reduces load, transferring load to the second axle momentarily. This transfer assures that the first axle always locks or reduces speed faster than the second axle. The effect of this system of anti-lock is that the average of the two wheels of the front axle controls both axles. No wheel is allowed more than momentary lock-up.

2

The suspension described above is different from that on which Dana Corporation requested an interpretation some time ago. However, the letters of interpretation in answer to Dana are general enough that they should be clarified so they do not restrict our use of this system. Those interpretations say that an axle must have sensors if it is to be allowed to have momentary lock-up. This requirement does not seem justified in this instance since it requires the axle without sensors to perform better than the axle with the complete sensor and logic system. Certainly, we agree that the axle-by-axle complete control system adequately controls the braking function and stability of a trailer. Wheel-by-wheel systems were not significantly better. We believe that a "slave" axle that performs as well as those controlled axles in all respects, should be adequate even though mechanical control is used rather than sensors in each wheel.

While stopping distances is not a test requirement on trailers, it is an important safety factor. Considerable testing with measured stopping distances has been done with both bogie control and axle-by-axle control. Best stopping distances are secured with systems which allow momentary zero wheel speed intervals on low mu surfaces. A system tuned to give no lock-up or zero wheel speed would give longer stopping distances. While there are differences in some instances with one system having shorter distance than the other, the variations are not as great between bogie control and axle control of a given anti-lock system on a given trailer, as they are between two manufacturers' anti-lock systems. See Appendix A. Therefore, the use of bogie control does not change the stopping distance beyond the ranges already exhibited by variations in anti-lock systems.

In all of the testing that has been done with bogie control, we've had no indication of lack of stability.

Air consumption, which is not a test requirement but is a factor in the selection of systems, is not significantly different.

Systems on which we have seen test data using four sensors with a single logic, do not perform better than the bogie control described here.

In the interest of providing the most economical system that meets the requirements and intents of FMVSS 121, Fruehauf is considering production of the described system of anti-lock where any momentary lock-up on any wheel is of equal or shorter time than any momentary lock-up on the wheel using electrical speed sensors.

3

We request your prompt confirmation that the described system complies with FMVSS 121. If NHTSA has any questions about this systems' compliance, Fruehauf would request an early response to avoid any economic loss or inconvenience to the trailer customers.

Sincerely,

A. F. Hulverson Vice President Engineering

(Enclosures Omitted.]

ID: nht94-1.92

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: March 22, 1994

FROM: Gerald J. Gannon -- Attorney, GM Legal Staff

TO: John Womack, Esq. -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS 114 - Automatic Transmission Park-Lock Override

ATTACHMT: Attached to 9-16-94 letter from John Womack to Gerald Gannon (A42; STD. 114)

TEXT: This letter requests the opinion of the Chief Counsel's Office on this question: did the agency intend to require that vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision must prevent steering after removal of the key in order to have an igni tion key-operated transmission shift override device? Uncertainty results from provisions added to FMVSS 114 on March 26, 1991 (56 Fed. Reg. 12464, 12469) that were basically continued on January 17, 1992 (57 Fed. Reg. 2039).

BACKGROUND

May 30, 1990

The agency amended FMVSS 114 to require vehicles with an automatic transmission with a "park" position to have a key-locking system that prevents removal of the key unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in "park" or becomes locked in "park" as the direct result of removing the key. "The amendment is intended to reduce the potential for accidents caused by shifting the transmission lever on parked vehicles with automatic transmissions.", by children (55 Fed. Reg. 21868). In the Preamble the agency approved of an ignition key-operated manual override device:

"The agency has decided that a superior approach is to permit a manual override to the electrical shift system, but only if such an override has to be operated by the key used to control the vehicle." (emphasis added)

(Id. at 21873, left column)

Use of such a key-operated override device was not limited to a vehicle whose steering is prevented after removal of the key.

March 26, 1991

Responding to petitions for reconsideration of the Final Rule, the agency amended the above Final Rule primarily to permit certain key-less override devices so that in the event of electrical failure the ignition key can be removed or the transmission sh ifted out of "park". This was done because in the event of a battery failure certain vehicle designs would not permit removal of the key from the ignition or shifting the transmission from "park" to facilitate towing. At the same time the agency attemp ted to add to the regulation permission to use the previously approved ignition key-operated override device (56 Fed. Reg. 12464).

The Preamble to that response states:

One way to prevent access by children and thus vehicle roll-away is to permit an override that is operable only by the vehicle's key because this typically ensures that the override is being activated by an authorized user. The preamble to the final rule explained that such a key-operated override was permissible. Based on the apparent confusion caused by not expressly stating this in the regulatory text, upon reconsideration, the agency has modified Standard No. 114 so that section S4.2.2(b) now s tates that the means for activating the override device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3 of the standard.

...

The agency emphasizes that the amendment permits a key-less emergency override only if theft protection is ensured by a steering lock. (emphasis added)

(Id at 12466, 12467)

S4.2.2(b) was added to permit moving the automatic transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key from the ignition by activating an emergency override device. If the device is activated by the key, as defined in S3, the device need not b e covered. If there is a key-less device, the device must be "covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool."

The Preamble to that Final Rule suggests the phrase "provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed" was inadvertently placed as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed. The m eans for activating the device may be operable by the key, as defined in S3. The device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is rem ovable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added)

(Supra at 12469)

However, to be consistent with the Preamble concern about theft protection for only a key-less override device, the phrase should have been located as shown below:

(b) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified herein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key. The means for activating the device may be operable by the key, a s defined in S3. Provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, the device may be operable by another means which is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is re movable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool. (emphasis added) January 17, 1992

In response to Toyota and Honda's petitions for reconsideration of the March 1991 rule the agency stated "the notice further amends the requirements to provide manufacturers appropriate flexibility while continuing to meet the need for safety" and delaye d until September 1, 1993 "the requirement for inaccessibility for the emergency release button on the transmission shift override device". The increased flexibility expressly allows releasing a key in any gear shift position in the event of battery fai lure. The delay of the requirement to cover a key-less transmission shift override device was intended to help manufacturers unable to meet the September 1, 1992 effective point. (57 Fed. Reg. 2039-40)

At that time the agency reiterated:

The May 1990 final rule permitted only key-based override systems. In response to petitions for reconsideration, NHTSA also decided to permit key-less overrides that are not visible and are "child-proof". . . . Accordingly, the agency decided to per mit key-less override devices only if they are covered by a non-transparent device which, when in place, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other tool.

(Supra at 2040)

With respect to transmission shift override devices the Final Rule resulting from that rulemaking states:

S4.2.2(b) is revised to read as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after the removal of the key provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or by another means which, when installed, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when inst alled, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

(Supra at 2043 - emphasis added))

OUR INTERPRETATION

We believe that the agency intended to continue to permit use of an ignition key-operated shift override device in all vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission with a "park" provision. We do not believe that the agency for the first time intende d, without comment, to limit a shift override device "operated by the key used to control the vehicle" only to vehicles whose steering is prevented when the key is removed from the ignition. Although the steering prevention concern expressed in the Prea mble was confined to key-less shift override devices, the Final Rule might be interpreted to limit even an override device operable by the ignition key to a vehicle whose steering is prevented when the key is removed. However, since an ignition key-oper ated shift override device requires use of that key, it could also be argued that the key is no longer removed from the vehicle, and is required to be used by someone who is authorized and therefore steering need not be prevented.

SUGGESTION

In the event that the agency concurs with my interpretation, in some future rulemaking the agency may also wish to clarify the regulation as follows:

(b)(1) Notwithstanding S4.2.1, each vehicle specified therein may have a device which, when activated, permits moving the transmission shift lever from "park" after removal of the key.

(2) For vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, the means for activating the device shall either be operable by the key, as defined in S3, or, provided that steering is prevented when the key is removed, by another means which, when insta lled, is covered by a non-transparent surface which, when installed, prevents sight of and activation of the device and which is removable only by use of a screwdriver or other similar tool.

CONCLUSION

General Motors would like the flexibility to offer automatic transmission-equipped vehicles with a "park" position and an ignition key-operated shift override device in vehicles that would only prevent forward self-mobility after key removal as allowed b y FMVSS 114 S4.2(b). Repeated Preamble comments regarding such a key-operated override device would permit this design. Your concurrence with this interpretation would be appreciated.

As always, we are prepared to discuss this matter further with you. If there are any questions, please contact me at (313) 974-1610.

ID: 1983-2.48

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/18/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Champion Home Builders Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

July 12, 1983

Office of Chief Council National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Attention: Mr. Kratzke

Reference: FMVSS 217

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Champion Home Builders Co. is a manufacturer of medium duty buses. Our 22 passenger bus, including driver, with a GVWR in excess of 10,000 lbs. is equipped with a driver's door on the front road side, a passenger entrance door on the front off-road side, an emergency exit window on each side at the rear of the bus, and a roof exit in the rear half of the bus. Each of the emergency exit windows and the passenger door have more than 536 square inches of unobstructed opening available. The driver's door provides a sufficient unobstructed opening to pass a 13 by 20 inch ellipsoid through and has a sufficient area that, when added to the 536 square inches provided by the rear side window, provides for the 40% of the total unobstructed opening requirement on the road side. All exits including the roof exit meet all the requirements for exits as specified in FMVSS 217.

We have been advised of an opinion by a state regulatory agency that unobstructed openings provided by exit doors on buses over 10,000 lbs. GVWR may not be used in computing the total area requirements of S5.2 of the standard. More specifically, it is their opinion that the side exits required by S5.2.1 must be provided by windows. We are in disagreement with that opinion.

We are requesting an opinion from NHTSA concerning whether the exit facilities on our buses as outlined above meet the requirements of the standard. If more information is needed, please contact me.

Thank you in advance for your early consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

John G. Sims Federal Compliance Engineer JGS/dko

cc: Mr. S. Messina, Supervisor Motor Carrier Inspection 1035 Parkway Avenue Trenton, NJ 08625

Mr. Jerry Loftus Mr. Wayne Williams

John G. Sims Federal Compliance Engineer Champion Home Builders Co. Dryden, MI 48428

Dear Mr. Sims:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff, concerning the emergency exit requirements of Safety Standard No. 217, Bus window retention and release, that apply to a 22 passenger bus with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. You indicated that your company counts the area provided by side doors in determining the total emergency exit openings for these buses. However, a state regulatory agency has advised you that side doors may not be used in computing the total emergency exit area required by S5.2 of Standard No. 217. Your letter stated that the state regulatory agency believes that the emergency exit opening for side exits must be provided by windows. The state regulatory agency is incorrectly interpreting the requirements of Standard No. 217 if they hold the position you have stated.

Section S5.2 of Standard No. 217 specifies requirements for the provision of emergency exits for buses, and S5.2.1 sets forth more specific requirements for buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds. As long as side doors meet all requirements applicable to emergency doors in Standard No. 217, they can be considered emergency exits for purposes of compliance with that standard. The agency has stated this position in several past interpretations, and has never indicated that only window emergency exits could be considered as side exits for purposes of compliance with section S5.2.1.

Should you have any further questions or need further information in this area, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address, or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1983-3.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/27/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA--30

Mr. H. Nakaya Office Manager Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter of August 25, 1983, requesting an interpretation of the requirements of Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. Your specific questions concern the application of the requirements of S3.5.1(b) of the standard to an armrest.

The answers to your four questions are as follows:

A) The requirements of S3.5.1(b), as with the requirements of S3.5.1(a), apply to the whole area of an armrest. In contrast, the requirements of S3.5.1(c) only apply to a part of an armrest (i.e., the portion of the armrest within the pelvic impact area).

B) See answer to A.

C) The agency does not give prior approval to specific designs. It appears, however, that your design would not comply, since apparently the armrest will not deflect or collapse to within 1.25 inches of a rigid test panel surface without permitting contact with any rigid material, in this case the power window switch. In addition, the power window switch apparently does not have a minimum vertical height of not less than one inch. It is difficult to provide you with a definitive answer since section A-A of your drawing appears to be drawn to a different scale than the scale shown in the lower left corner of your drawing.

D) It appears from your drawing that even if the requirements of S3.5.1(b) were amended, as you suggested, to limit their application to the pelvic impact area of the armrest, the design would not comply since the power window switch area of the armrest is within the pelvic impact area. Rather than seeking an amendment to the standard, you may want to consider modifying your design so that it will comply with either 3.5.1(a) or (c) of the standard.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 25, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Interpretation of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mazda submits this letter to request an interpretation of the requirements for standard S3.5.1.(b) of FMVSS 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact.

Mazda is developing a new model in which the armrest, by design, should meet the standard S3.5.1.(b). It is difficult for the design to meet standard S3.5.1.(a) or (c). The requirement states, "It shall be constructed with energy-absorbing material that defects or collapses to within 1.25 inches of rigid panel surface . . ."

Our questions are as follows:

A) Is this requirement applied to the whole area of an armrest or part of an armrest?

B) If this requirement applies to part of an armrest, what is the area that it applies to?

C) Does Mazda's design conform to standard S3.5.1(b)? (See attached sketch)

D) If Mazda's design does not conform to standard S3.5.1.(b), what kind of amendment is required? Example: At least the pelvic impact area has to meet the requirement.)

We would appreciate your interpretation with regard to this matter at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

H. Nakaya Office Manager

HN/ab

***Insert Diagram Here***

ID: 86-3.39

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/02/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Don Black -- Director, U.S. Engineering Office, Alfa Romeo Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NH 07632

Thank you for your letter of March 24, 1986, to former Chief Counsel Jeffrey R. Miller about the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that Alfa Romeo intends to install automatic safety belts in its two seat convertible model and asked how the requirements of Standard No. 208 apply to such an automatic crash protection system. In essence, all of your questions concern whether an automatic belt system can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt system under 1.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. The answer is yes, an automatic safety belt can be used to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S1.1.2.1(c)(2).

As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be "used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat assembly otherwise required by that option." Thus, an automatic safety belt can be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 belt system under S4.1.2.1(c)(2). Therefore, an Alfa Romeo convertible equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ref. #040

March 24, 1986

Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: Request for Clarification: FMVSS 208

Dear Mr. Miller: Alfa Romeo has committed to tooling to fit automatic belts in the 2 seat convertible marketed as "SPIDER". This will allow Alfa Romeo to exceed the first year phase-in requirement of 10 percent.

Our management has some concern that this decision may have placed the Corporation in a position of risk, due to the present ambiguities within FMVSS 208.

Following is our analysis of 208 as presently effective:

- S4.1.2(a) Permits passive systems meeting frontal crash criteria of S5.1.

- S4.1.2(c)(2) Permits active belts combined with a passive system meeting frontal crash criteria of S5.1. With this option, there is no requirement to meet lateral or rollover protection requirements.

Looking at these requirements, it appears that an automatic belt system would have to meet the lateral and rollover requirements of S4.7.2(c)(1). However, further into the text at S4.5.2, it appears that automatic belts may be used to meet the requirement of S4.1.2(c)(2). We would like your confirmation that this "linking" is correctly interpreted. If so, then it would seem that there is not lateral or rollover requirement.

- S4.1.2.3.2. Cites type 1 or 2 belts for convertibles, which again according to S4.5.3 may be substituted by automatic belts; thereby linking with S4.1.2(a) and (c)(2).

It appears that a convertible having automatic belts would not be required to comply with either S5.2 or S5.3. For this we solicit N.H.T.S.A.'s concurrence. Should the rollover requirement of S5.3 be required, we know of no means by which any conventional convertible can meet the criteria of S6.1.

In looking at "intent" we tend to think that N.H.T.S.A. had already recognized the convertible/rollover incongruity when S4.1.2.3.2 was written, which seems to concur with P.L.89-563 Sect. 103(f)(3).

May we have N.H.T.S.A.'s early response?

Sincerely, ALFA ROMEO, INC.

Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office

DB/as

ID: 77-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/28/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Weber Aircraft

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/16//88, TO GLENN L. DUNCAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 207; LETTER DATED 08/30/79 TO ROBER J. WAHLS FROM FRANK A. BERNDT; LETTER DATED 02/01/88 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNCAN RE UNITED TOOL AND STAMPING INC FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM; LETTER DATED 11/16/87 TO ERICA Z. JONES FROM GLENN L. DUNN RE FMVSS 207 SEATING SYSTEM OCC-1278

TEXT: This responds to your letter of February 25, 1977, requesting an interpretation concerning the force requirements specified in Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, and Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You ask whether the specified forces are intended to be "limit loads" (those loads under which no permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation is allowed) or "ultimate loads" (those loads under which structural integrity must be maintained even though permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation takes place) (your terms and definitions).

Under the requirements of Standard No. 210, the anchorage of a seat belt assembly must be able to withstand certain designated forces when tested in accordance with the procedures of the standard. Paragraph S4.2.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that permanent deformation or rupture of a seat belt anchorage or its surrounding area is not considered to be a failure, if the required force is sustained for a specified period of time. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 210 could be considered "ultimate loads," as you define that term.

The agency interprets the force requirements of Standard No. 207 to allow some deformation of the seats during the force test, provided structural integrity is maintained. Therefore, the force requirements of Standard No. 207 could also be considered "ultimate loads," as you define that term.

Please note, however, that if seats are displaced to an extent that the agency determines occupant safety is threatened, a determination could be made under provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1381, et seq.) that the vehicle contains a safety related defect and sanctions could be imposed on the manufacturer.

Please contact our office if you have any further questions.

SINCERELY,

Frank A. Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Feb. 25, 1977

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Attention: Chief Counsel's Office

Subject: Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 & 210

Ref: Telecon G. Cress and R. Nelson, 2-25-77

Our test facility has been approached by several manufacturers of vehicle seating systems. These manufacturers have requested that we test (and provide a report) to the requirements of MVSS Nos. 207 and 210. In reviewing the MVSS requirements, a question has arisen. It is on the definition or interpretation of the phrase, "shall withstand the following forces" as used in MVSS 207, Paragraph S4.2. In the aircraft industry, load or force requirements are usually designated as limit loads (those loads under which no permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation is allowed) or ultimate loads (those loads under which structural integrity must be maintained even though permanent set, yielding or permanent deformation takes place).

As an example, if the structure in Figure 1 (attached) were subjected to a limit load of 20 times the weight of the seat, the seat would retain its full capabilities to function. There would be no permanent deflection or degradation of the structure due to the limit load application. If the structure in Figure 1 were subjected to an ultimate load of 20 times the seat weight, the seat could assume the posture shown in Figure 2 as long as it supported the test load for from 3 to 10 seconds. The question is, "May we consider the forces specified in MVSS 207 (and also MVSS 210) as ultimate loads?"

Thank you for your assistance.

WEBER AIRCRAFT, Division of Walter Kidde & Company, Inc.

Gordon P. Cress Chief, Structures & Test

ATTACH.

DIRECTION OF TEST LOAD

PRE & POST TEST (LIMIT LOAD)

FIGURE 1

DIRECTION OF TEST LOAD

POST TEST (ULTIMATE LOAD APPLICATION)

FIGURE

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: SEMA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 24, 1977, letter asking about the applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, to aftermarket rims.

Your first assumption that vans and light truck models are classified as vehicles other than passenger cars is correct. Accordingly, rims manufactured for use on these vehicles must comply with the requirements of the standard. Where the rims may be used in the aftermarket either on passenger cars or vehicles other than passenger cars, they must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 120.

On a related matter concerning the aftermarket, you question whether Standard No. 120 has applicability to rims sold for use on used vehicles. Section S3 of the standard states that the requirements apply to motor vehicles other than passenger cars and to rims for use on those vehicles. This indicates that the standard is both a motor vehicle and an equipment standard. Since it is an equipment standard, the requirements apply to all rims manufactured for use on the specified vehicles regardless of whether the rim will be original equipment or sold in the aftermarket.

SINCERELY,

March 24, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Since I have not heard from you in the past few days, I will assume that the enclosed report from the "Consumer Product Safety Guide" is completely fallacious. As I mentioned during our phone conversation, our association is attempting to provide the aftermarket wheel manufacturers in our membership with timely information concerning the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120, rim marking requirements, and I do have several questions that pertain to the standard.

We have made the assumption that the van and light truck models in the domestic fleet fall under the category of vehicles other than passenger cars, and would like to know if our assumption is correct. Also, in the February 7, 1977 Federal Register, Page 7142, the discussion of rim marking requirements states that "these marking requirements have no bearing on the use of the rim on passenger cars, except as future labeling requirements in Standard No. 110 might prohibit one or more of the items required by S5.2. This eventuality is considered to be extremely unlikely." We find that the most common bolt circle patterns for wheels are common to both passenger cars and light trucks and vans, and the aftermarket generally does not market separate wheels for trucks and passenger cars. We would like to know if the statement quoted above means that a wheel that has a common application for light trucks and passenger cars can, or must, have the rim markings required by FMVSS 120 by August 1, 1977.

We have also noted that the standard is promulgated to fulfill Section 202 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which pertains to equipment requirements for new vehicles or vehicles before the first purchase thereof. We, therefore, request a legal opinion on whether the FMVSS 120 can be construed to apply to a true aftermarket wheel which is purchased by the vehicle owner, usually some time after the first purchase.

This may be a moot point, for in fact, the aftermarket manufacturers market the same wheel models for light truck applications, passenger car applications, new vehicle applications (dealership changeover), and aftermarket. But a legal opinion on the questions that I have raised would be most helpful at this time.

Your assistance would be very much appreciated, and I trust that if you have any questions on this matter, you won't hesitate to call on me.

Paul J. Ryan Staff Engineer

Consumer Product Safety Guide

Rim Requirement Repeated, Mobile Homes De-regulated by NHTSA

A requirement that wheel rims of motor vehicles other than passenger cars be labeled as to their normal dimensions manufacturer, and date of manufacture has been withdrawn by the National Highway Safety Administration. The requirement had been previously issued with a delayed effective date. The NHTSA stated that the (Illegible Word) of the requirement had not interfered with certification and defect actions, and because enforcement might lead to economic waste, the agency has decided it is unnecessary. In responding