ID: nht79-3.34

DATE: 06/18/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter concerning the marking requirements for vehicle windshields having shade bands. You asked whether the "A S1" marking symbol required by Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, can be placed on the tint band itself rather than on the glazing material below the band, if the tint band is a flexible sheet applied on top of the glazing.

Safety Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials", ANS Z26. The ANS Z26 standard requires special additional markings for glazing that has shade bands or tinted areas:

"Glazing materials, which in a single sheet of material, are intentionally made with an area having a luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent (Test No. 2), adjoining an area which has less than 70-percent luminous transmittance, shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area which is intended to comply with Test No. 2. The markings shall be A S1 or A S2, etc., the direction of the arrow indicating the portion of the material which complies with Test No. 2 and the number indicating the item with which that portion of the sheet complies . . . ."

You will note from the quoted portion of this specification that the special marking is only required if the tinted shade band area of the windshield has a luminous transmittance of less than 70 percent. Your letter states that the transparent windshield tint band that you intend to use allows 70 percent light transmission. Therefore, you would not be required to use the "A S1" special marking either on the band itself or on the glazing.

For removable tint bands of this type that do not have a 70 percent light transmission, however, the agency would permit the "A S1" marking to be on the tint band itself rather than on the underlying glazing, provided the marking is located at the lowest possible portion of the tint band.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 21, 1979

Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Council, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Levin:

Cars & Concepts is preparing a vehicle for 1980 production which incorporates a transparent windshield tint band. This band would allow 70% light transmission across its width and be located in accordance with SAE J-100.

This band would be applied to a piece of untinted glass and this condition forms the basis for my question. If we install a shade band across the top of a vehicle's windshield, are we required to sandblast the designation "AVSI" onto the glass below the band (I understand it is cited through reference in FMVSS No. 205)?

If this "AVSI" notice is required on untinted glass when a shade band is applied, I propose that it should be on the band itself as it is only when the band is on the car (it would be possible to remove the band) that this notice is required.

The N.H.T.S.A.'s decision on this point is critical to our project timing as brochure shots are scheduled and the addition or deletion of this component must be made prior to brochure release. Because of this your response as soon as possible will be greatly appreciated.

Enclosed is a photograph of a vehicle with a prototype version of the mentioned tint band which I feel may clarify our question. Please call if any point is unclear.

Sincerely, Moe Pare -- Director of Design

Encl.

cc: D. Draper; R. Ryan

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-3.22

DATE: 10/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Honda Motor Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 27, 1981, asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101-80. Your letter asked whether an enclosed sample of a heater control identification plate met the requirements of section S5.2.2 of the standard. Your letter was primarily concerned about whether the color used for the hot extreme would be considered "red" within the meaning of that section.

The sample heater control identification plate enclosed with your letter identifies the hot and cold extremes of the temperature control by both words and color. At the left of the identification plate is the word "cold" on a blue background. At the right of the identification plate is the word "hot" on a background that appears by visual inspection to be orange.

Section S5.2.2 of Standard No. 101-80 states:

Identification shall be provided for each function of any automatic vehicle speed system control and any heating and air conditioning system control, and for the extreme positions of any such control that regulates a function over a quantitative range. If this identification is not specified in Tables 1 or 2, it shall be in word form unless color coding is used. If color coding is used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control, the hot extreme shall be identified by the color red and the cold extreme by the color blue . . . . [Emphasis added.]

The agency interprets section S5.2.2 to require that the colors red and blue be used to identify the extreme positions of a temperature control only when color is the sole means by which the extreme positions are identified. If the words "hot" and "cold" are used to identify the extreme positions, color coding is a voluntary addition and the red and blue color requirements of section S5.2.2 do not apply.

Therefore, since the sample of the heater control identification plate enclosed with your letter identifies the extreme positions of the temperature control with the words "hot" and "cold," it meets the requirements of section S5.2.2 concerning that requirement regardless of whether the color used for the hot extreme would be considered "red" within the meaning of that section.

As to your question whether the color used for the hot extreme on the sample of the heater control identification plate is red, our visual inspection indicates that the color is orange rather than red. For guidance on the meaning of the color "red," we suggest that you refer to 49 CFR @ 172.407(d). That section, which is part of the Department of Transportation's regulations concerning hazardous materials, establishes color tolerances for various colors, including red. The section indicates how to obtain copies of the Department's color tolerance charts or where they may be inspected. While the charts are not referenced by Standard No. 101-80, they do provide guidance on the tolerances of various colors.

SINCERELY,

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

July 27, 1981

Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Dear Sir:

This is to request your official interpretation regarding the red color to be used on the heater temperature control identification plate.

In FMVSS 101-80, section S5.2.2 requires in part that the hot extreme of the heater temperature control shall be identified by the color red; if color coding is used.

I am enclosing a sample of the heater control identification plate which we intend to use on 1982 model year Honda automobiles for your inspection. Please confirm that the color used for the hot extreme meets your requirements.

Brian Gill Manager Certification Department

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-1.10

DATE: 02/07/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Michelin Tire Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 16, 1979, letter in which you requested an interpretation of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 (49 CFR @ 571.109). Specifically, you asked if it is permissible for a tire manufacturer to label its tires with information about other tire sizes which the labeled tire could be used to replace. For example, you stated that Michelin would like to label its tires with the alphanumeric tire size which its P-metric tire sizes could replace and that Michelin would like to label its 230-15 tires as replacements for the 225-15 tires. Such labeling is expressly prohibited by Standard No. 109.

Paragraph S4.3(a) of Standard No. 109 specifies that each tire shall be labeled with "one size designation, except that equivalent inch and metric size designations may be used." With respect to the alphanumeric sizes and the P-metric replacements and the 225-15 and 230-15 sizes, the suggested replacement sizes have different section widths and minimum size factors than the sizes they would be replacing. In other words, they are not equivalent size designations, and S4.3(a) prohibits the tire from containing more than one size designation in these circumstances.

Labeling of the sort you have requested has been commonly referred to as "dual-size markings." Dual-size markings are a representation that a particular tire can be considered as meeting fully the criteria of two separate tire size designations. In fact, such tires do not satisfy the physical dimension criteria in Standard No. 109 for both size designations. As a consequence, labeling of this type was specifically prohibited when the labeling requirements of Standard No. 109 were amended at 36 FR 1195, January 26, 1971. The prohibition has been repeated in subsequent notices which addressed the question of tire labeling under the Standard; see 39 FR 10162, March 18, 1974 and 42 FR 12869, March 7, 1977.

I should note that prohibition of dual-size markings does not mean that NHTSA believes that the replacement tires would perform inadequately if installed on the rims. However, dual-size markings represent a marketing effort by tire manufacturers to attempt to persuade consumers to change the size and/or type of tires mounted on their cars. It is inappropriate to extend this marketing effort to the Federally required label on the tire. The manufacturer must provide the consumer, in a straightforward manner, technical information necessary for the safety of the consumer's automobile. This should be the only purpose of the label.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MICHELIN TIRE CORPORATION -- Technical Group November 16, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Ref: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 109

Gentlemen:

We are considering marking our P-series tires with the alpha-numeric size they replace shown below in parenthesis. An example would be as follows:

P205/75 R15 (replaces FR78-15)

Similarly, we are considering marking our 230-15 tire as follows:

230-15 (replaces 225-15)

The 230-15 can be used on all cars that are fitted with 225-15.

Please advise us if such markings would be in violation of FMVSS 109 or any other D.O.T. Standard.

Your quick response would be appreciated since we are planning to start these programs shortly.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

John B. White -- Engineering Manager, Technical Information Dept.

ID: nht80-1.5

DATE: 01/18/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Pierson, Ball & Dowd

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 7, 1979, to Taylor Vinson of this office requesting written confirmation of an oral opinion.

Specially you asked whether your client, Grumman Allied Industries, Inc. needed to obtain a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301-75 in the situation where it, to use your words, "was considering converting a small number of their gasoline-powered trucks to diesel power on an experimental basis in order to sponsor a comparative fuel economy test which would be conducted by their consumers." The opinion for which you request written confirmation is that Grumman "would not need a temporary exemption if there existed a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle as modified would still be in compliance with the fuel integrity safety standard."

That option is essentially correct assuming that Grumman is the manufacturer of the vehicles in question. Grumman may substitute diesel engines for conventional ones in the manufacturing process without barrier impacting its vehicles if a reasonable basis exists for concluding that its vehicles as modified will meet the standard. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not legally require a manufacturer to test its vehicles. It does, however, require conformance of those vehicles with NHTSA safety performance standards and although testing in accordance with the procedures and conditions set forth in the standards may provide the greatest assurance of conformity, a manufacturer may nevertheless resort to engineering studies mathematical calculations, computer simulations etc. as a basis for certifying that the vehicle does meet all applicable standards.

If Grumman is converting existing vehicles produced and certified by another manufacturer, the responsibility differs though the end result may be substantially similar. The Act imposes no restrictions upon the alteration of a vehicle by its owner, but the agent of an owner (specifically a manufacturer, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business) may not "knowingly render inoperative in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable safety standard . . . ." (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Therefore, if a person other than Grumman is converting existing vehicles to diesel power, it should not do so unless it is assured that at the end of the conversion process the vehicle continues to meet Standard No. 301-75.

I hope this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

December 7, 1979

Taylor Vincent, Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Vincent:

In a telephone conversation I had with you on December 3, 1979, I indicated to you that our client, Grumman Allied Industries, Incorporated (GAII), was seeking clarification on the need to acquire a temporary exemption with respect to FMVSS 301-75 (Fuel System Integrity). If you recall, GAII was considering converting a small number of their gasoline-powered trucks to diesel power on an experimental basis in order to sponsor a comparative fuel economy test which would be conducted by their consumers. It was your opinion that GAII would not need a temporary exemption if there existed a reasonable basis to believe that the vehicle as modified would still be in compliance with the fuel integrity safety standard.

Therefore, I would ask you to confirm my understanding of the substance of our conversation so that our client may have some documentation of its intention to maintain its operations in full compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and if you have any questions, please call me.

PIERSON, BALL & DOWD

E. Michael Flanagan

ID: nht78-2.21

DATE: 07/19/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Lighting and Optic Laboratory

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 8, 1978, to Mr. Vinson of this office concerning the version of SAE J567, Bulb Sockets, applicable as a subreferenced standard to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

The SAE standards which are specified in Standard No. 108 are cited by a number and letter to indicate the applicable version. These directly referenced SAE standards often subreference other SAE standards by inclusion of such terms as "reference is made to SAE J " or "reference SAE J " in which case, unless otherwise specified in Standard No. 108, the subreferenced standard is the version contained in the 1970 SAE Handbook (See paragraph S5.1 of Standard No. 108).

The subreferenced SAE standard closest in subject matter to J567 is J573d, "Lamp Bulbs and Sealed Units", December 1968. By NHTSA interpretation J573 is not exclusive, and other bulb designs including tubular type bulbs are permitted which are not included in SAE J573. There is no subreferenced notation to SAE J567 contained in SAE J573d. Further, although the agency issued an interpretation in 1968 indicating that SAE Standard J575d, Tests for Motor Vehicle Lighting Devices and Components, August 1967, referenced J567, that statement was incorrect and J575d contains no such reference. Therefore SAE J567 is not a subreferenced standard in Standard No. 108. When an SAE Standard is not referenced or subreferenced by a Federal Standard, compliance with it is voluntary, and you may therefore use (or not use) SAE J567 or any version thereof as you choose, as long as the assembled lamp complies with Standard No. 108.

SINCERELY,

FIAT SETTORE AUTOMOBILE

8th May, 1978

TAYLOR VINSON Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS N. 108 - Lamps, Reflective devices and Associated equipment.

Dear Mr. Vinson,

on behalf of Italian Electrotechnical Committee (CEI) I pose to you a question regarding SAE Standard related to bulb and socket.

The International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) issued a number of Standard sheets applicable to bulb base, socket, and lampholders for automotive use.

The Italian Committee made a reserve with explication that IEC dimension and tolerances are not compatibles with ones stated in SAE Standard J 567b.

In many cases the lighting devices for motor cars are the same for European market and for North-American market. Car manufacturers and lamp manufacturers obviously wishes to use only one type of lampholder, for internal standardization, cost reduction.

The IEC/Technical Committee 34 (Lamp and holder) affirmed that SAE J 567 b is not longer applicable because she is obsolete, replaced by J 567 c and the applicable SAE Standard for lighting equipment reported only the reference to "SAE Standard J 567" without any indication of edition.

Finally, the Chairman of IEC/TC 34, Mr. E.M. Kooker (G.E. - Lamp Division) suggested us to present the question directly to NHTSA.

The questions are the following:

"In the case of SAE Standard J 567, which is the edition applicable: the J 567 b, current at first publication of Standard 108 (1966), or the new one, J 567 c (1970)?

If either "b" or "c" are applicable, and the lamp manufacturer chose the "c" edition, how he can demonstrate the compliance with the Standard?

Should he declare that the lampholder would be checked with the gages of tables 1 and 2 in J 567 c and not with a caliper or other instrument?".

We think that your explanation will be very useful in our daily work for motor vehicle safety.

(G. Bertella) Chief, Lighting and Optic Laboratory

ID: nht94-2.66

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 4, 1994

FROM: Richard Kreutziger -- Executive Director, New York State Distributors Ass'n. (OCC-9945)

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5/18/94 from John Womack to Richard Kreutziger (A42; Std. 217)

TEXT:

I have today received the preliminary data from one of the members of NYSBDA the following "fax".

As noted in the preliminary data of FMVSS 217 - there are a number of bus body distributors. As also noted these are small business operations and many, many things affect their ability to carry on a successful company profitable operation. Among the " things" is keeping current with the "school bus regulations". In the process of their daily business - the sales and pricing of their vehicles to comply with the requirements of state and federal regulations and standards is very important. I hope you are readily able to realize the point I am trying to make. Quick changes can be very detrimental to that profit factor as well as the individual position of accountability to, not only their customers - but to themselves.

As you can readily view from the following "fax" there are certain "conditions" that are acceptable to the manufacturer.

We have a special position here in New York State - in that the state regulations exceed the minimum 217 requirements (except for placement of left side emergency door). NYS requires added emergency exits, such as push-out windows and roof hatches based upon capacity of the vehicle.

The distributors now are faced here in New York State with a very large unknown factor. To meet the state regulations - for door (L/S/E/D) placement - with folding seat cushion - longer body length - aisle dimension factor at L/S/E/D. Anything that you can furnish and supply to me in a timely fashion - to help my association membership will be greatly appreciated.

Attachment

CARPENTER MANUFACTURING, INC.

BULLETIN NO. 94 - 34 May 3, 1994

TO: All Carpenter Distributors

SUBJECT: EMERGENCY EXIT - DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE

NHTSA has postponed enactment of certain parts of FMVSS 217 relative to emergency exits; this change was to have taken effect on May 2, 1994. We were notified by fax on May 2nd that the effective date of the "additional emergency exit" requirement "has been delayed until September 1, 1994."

Carpenter will allow its distributors to omit certain options on orders currently in-house at no change order fee, provided the following conditions are met:

1. Order is not on schedule or started at time of receipt of change order; 2. Change order must be received by Friday, 5/13/94; 3. Only options on list below can be deleted or changed; 4. No pre-built orders can be changed; 5. Body length change will require cancellation of current order and resubmission of new order at current pricing.

Approved option deletions are:

1. Side emergency door and related components; 2. Flip seats and 4-logged seats; 3. Heater plumbing and routing; 4. Roof hatches and push-out sash not required by state specs.

Please note that the rear door hold-open device and reflective striping around the rear door opening will still be required and cannot be deleted.

You must keep in mind that orders are being schedule constantly; therefore, it is important to get any change order faxed as soon as possible. You will be notified by Martin Miller as to whether or not your change order can be accepted.

You may cover more than one body order on each change order, but all bodies on a given change order must have identical changes.

Todd Bontrager Asst. Vice President of Sales School Bus Division

ID: nht92-9.51

DATE: January 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Sue Ellen Russell, Esq. -- Brand & Lowell

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/24/91 from Sue Ellen Russell to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6599)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 24,1991, concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You stated that Glaval Corporation, which you represent, recently notified NHTSA of its intention to conduct a notification and remedy campaign to respond to "an apparent noncompliance with the safety belt anchorage strength requirements as they apply to the rear bench seat in Glaval vans." According to your letter,these seats contain three designated seating positions, and each seat belt anchorage is "mounted on the seat, not the floor." You stated that in the course of evaluating potential remedies, you became aware of an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter sent by this agency to Mr. R.W. Schreyer of Transportation Manufacturing Corporation, in which the agency stated that only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing. Because the Glaval van bench seat anchorages were tested simultaneously in NHTSA's compliance test, you asked the following questions:

1. Consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, should the seat-mounted anchorages of the Glaval bench seat have been loaded sequentially in NHTSA's test? If so, how does NHTSA's test on the Glaval bench seat, where the loads were applied simultaneously, affect NHTSA's tentative conclusion of noncompliance?

You are correct that, consistent with the Schreyer interpretation, only floor-mounted anchorages are subject to simultaneous testing under current requirements. However, based on our understanding of the Glaval design, and as discussed below, we consider the anchorages in the Glaval van to be floor-mounted. Therefore, the Schreyer interpretation is not relevant to whether the Glaval van is incompliance with Standard No. 210.

Based on photographs included in the Final Report of FMVSS 210 Compliance Testing of 1991 Glaval Van (Report No. 210-GTL-91-003), it appears that the seat belts are attached to a bar which runs along the floor behind the bench seat. The bar is directly mounted to floor brackets which run along each side of the seat.

Section S4.2 of Standard No. 210 specifies that floor-mounted seat belt anchorages for adjacent designated seating positions are simultaneously tested. The term "seat belt anchorage" is defined in section S3 as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure."

In the design at issue, the seat belt anchorage, or provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure, includes the seat belt bar. Since the seat belt bar is mounted to the floor by

means of the two brackets along the sides of the seat, the seat belt anchorage is "floor-mounted."

I note for your information that, on April 30, 1990, the agency published a final rule amending Standard No. 210 to, among other things, require simultaneous loading of all anchorages common to the same occupant seat. This amendment is effective on September 1, 1992.

2. Since Standard 207 requires simultaneous loading of the forces required by Standard 207 along with those required by Standard 210, does the Schreyer interpretation mean that, for a bench seat with seat-mounted anchorages, the proper loading for a test pursuant to FMVSS 207 should be 20 times these at weight plus the proper load for one designated seating position on the bench seat?

Your understanding of the Standard No. 207 test is correct.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht93-4.3

DATE: May 19, 1993

FROM: Edward F. Conway, Jr. -- Assistant General Counsel, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-15-93 from John Womack to Edward F. Conway, Jr. (A41; Std. 108; VSA Sec. 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT: The purpose of this letter is to seek official clarification of the center high mounted stop requirements with respect to truck campers prescribed in FMVSS 108, (49 CFR 571.108).

In the April 19, 1991, issue of the Federal Register (pp. 16015-16021), your agency published a final rule that amended FMVSS 108 to provide that trucks whose overall width is less than 80 inches and whose GVWR is 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, must be equipped with a center high mounted stop right (CHMSL).

On page l6Ol8, your agency responded in part to the concern expressed by the Recreation Vehicle Industry Association and others that CHMSLs would be obscured by aftermarket slide-in campers, as follows:

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, manufacturers, dealers, distributors, or motor vehicles repair businesses, may not install campers or other equipment on new or used vehicles that would obscure the original mandated CHMSL, as this obscuration would be "rendering inoperative" a mandated safety device. However, this prohibition does not apply to vehicle owners. Therefore, they could use slide-in campers or caps that obscure the original CHMSL. However, the agency believes that slide-in campers, which are not part of the original pickup design and hence are accessory equipment, are typically intended for occasional use, and the CHMSL would only be obscured for a relatively short period of time on those vehicles whose owners have purchased them.

This agency response was not entirely dispositive of the slide-in truck camper issue. The CHMSL requirement for trucks manufactured on or after September 1, 1993, applies ONLY to trucks whose overall width is LESS THAN 80 inches and whose GVWR is less than 10,000 pounds.

A number of RVIA manufacturer members produce slide-in campers that are more than 80 inches wide. When such a side-in camper is installed in a pickup truck that is less than 80 inches wide, the overall width of the pickup truck is thereby increased to MORE THAN 80 inches. See the enclosed truck camper brochures for examples.

While such a slide-in camper does obscure the pickup truck's CHMSL, it does NOT "render inoperative" a MANDATED safety device. A CHMSL is NOT required on that pickup truck because its overall width is now MORE THAN 80 inches. Moreover, if and when the side-in camper is removed thereby reducing the overall width of that pickup truck to less than 80 inches, the mandated CHMSL is not obscured but is "fully operative".

Accordingly, RVIA believes that:

1) manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses MAY lawfully install a slide-in camper that is 80 or more inches wide on a new or used pickup truck that is less than 80 inches wide even though that camper obscures the truck's CHMSL; and

2) a side-in camper that is 80 or more inches wide, which obscures the CHMSL of a truck that is less than 80 inches wide, is NOT required by MVSS 108 to be equipped with a CHMSL.

Does your agency concur?

Since the CHMSL requirement will apply to trucks built on or after September 1, 1993, we would greatly appreciate an early reply.

ID: nht93-4.37

DATE: June 17, 1993

FROM: James N. Doan -- Counsel-Operations, Eaton Corporation

TO: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: P. M. Menig

TITLE: INTERPRETATION OF FMVSS 101

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/21/93 from John Womack to James N. Doan (A41; Std. 101)

TEXT:

Eaton Corporation manufactures and sells transmissions for heavy duty (MVMA Class 6-8) trucks. This is to request an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 101, Controls and Displays (49 CFR 571.101) regarding an enhancement being considered to the mechanical controls situated at the top of the transmission shift lever for such vehicles. Specifically the issue is the necessity of illuminating a control for automated vehicle speed (cruise control) mounted on the transmission shift lever.

Presently we offer up to two pneumatic control switches for controlling an auxiliary transmission mounted integrally with the main transmission. Examples of the controls mounted on the lever in the cab of the truck are shown in Figure 1. We are considering augmenting this control with three electrical switches mounted in a housing integral with what we call the "skirt." The skirt is the plastic extending downward from the knob that covers the metal parts of the valve and creates a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. Figure 2 shows the proposed skirt with the addition of two rocker switches. One controls cruise on/off (mounted on the side face) and the other controls cruise set/resume and accelerate/coast (mounted on the slanted top face). Figure 3 shows the proposed skirt with the addition of a rotary electrical switch for controlling an engine retarder or brake. This switch has an off position and up to three levels of retardation. Extreme care has been taken to make these controls readily accessible to the driver such that they can be operated without the driver having to remove his eyes from the road. We expect the cruise switches to be used during certain shifting maneuvers, especially on long upgrades where the driver will manipulate the switches to achieve cruise control in the next lower numerical gear ratio. This is consistent with how the driver presently operates the two pneumatic switches, completely by feel. We have chosen two separate planes for the switches (side face and slanted top face) to aid the driver in differentiating the switches. Furthermore, we have put the engine brake switch on yet another face to further aid operation by feel/position. With electronically controlled engines in trucks, we expect the engine brake switch will be put in one position and left there. On/off operation will then be handled by interrupts from other switches in the cab, especially the service brake switch.

"Cut out" of the cruise control and engine brake by other cab mounted switches is an important consideration. Figure 4 is a spreadsheet of intended operation of electronic engine controls for trucks for 1994 and beyond. Note that the service brake and the clutch pedal switches can cause the engine control to cease regulating engine and vehicle speed. In any emergency situation, one of these switches is likely to be activated, stopping the cruise control mode of operation.

It would be difficult and costly to illuminate the automated vehicle speed switches. We believe that these controls are "hand operated controls mounted upon the floor ... (or) floor console" and do not require illumination as specified in S 5.3.1 of FMVSS 101. They are mounted on a shift lever, mounted on the floor next to the operator and within easy reach. We would appreciate confirmation of this interpretation.

Please let me know if you have any questions or require any further information.

(Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht73-3.2

DATE: 12/03/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 24, 1973, concerning the conformity of an emergency feature of Mercedes-Benz's interlock system to S7.4.3 of Standard No. 208.

The feature you describe would permit the engine starting system to be operated without belt use for a period of 3 minutes after an activation knob inside the engine compartment is depressed. If the vehicle stalls, the driver would have to leave his seat, open the hood, depress the knob, close the hood, and return to his seat, at which point the interlock would be deactivated for the 3-minute period. This bypass feature would apparently supplement other convenience aspects provided pursuant to S7.4.3.

After review of the Mercedes system we have determined that it would not result in bypassing the interlock in situations where that would not be permissible under S7.4.3 or S7.4.4. We therefore conclude that it is an allowable system and that it may be installed.

Yours truly,

MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.

September 24, 1973

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator

Subject: Request for Interpretation of S7.4.3 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208

As previously reported to motor vehicle program engineers, Daimler-Benz AG., the parent company of Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., intends to install an engine-starting system operable without interference from the belt interlock system after the engine has stopped as provided in S7.4.3 of Standard 208. We are of the opinion that the by-pass device is in conformity with Standard 208, but we seek this interpretation of the referenced section for clarity. However, if the administration interprets S7.4.3 so as to not allow the below-described Mercedes by-pass system, then we request that this letter be considered as a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 208 to allow incorporation of such a system in order to deal with the problem of a simultaneous engine stallout at a busy intersection and failure in the interlock system logic sequence. Obviously, such an occurrence could create a hazardous situation for the operator and occupants of a vehicle.

The Mercedes-Benz by-pass device will be tied in with the three minutes free starting period and would operate as follows:

In case of simultaneous engine stall and failure in the logic of the interlock system, the driver will have to open the front hood from inside the vehicle, leave the vehicle, and activate the system by depressing an activation knob located in the

2 engine compartment. The hood is then closed and the driver returns to his position within the vehicle at which point the interlock logic system becomes inoperative for a maximum of three minutes thus permitting repeated starting of the engine even though the driver and front seat passenger are not belted.

We feel this system addresses an important problem which can be encountered in normal driving especially in urban centers and would be in conformity with the present requirements of the standard. Needless to say, there is some urgency to this request for interpretation considering the rapidly approaching introduction date for 1974 model Mercedes equipped with the interlock belt system. Your favorable attention to this request would be most deeply appreciated.

Very truly yours,

H. W. Gerth Assistant Vice President