ID: nht90-3.15

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: July 12, 1990

FROM: Michael L. Hayes

TO: General Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Petition for the Establishment of Transport Safety Standards Regarding Incubators Used to Transport New Born Infants

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-12-90 from Michael L. Hayes to James Gilkey (OCC 5046); Also attached to letter dated 1-15-91 from Paul J. Rice to Michael L. Hayes (A37; Std. 213; FMVSS 102(4))

TEXT:

This petition prays that transport safety standards be established to provide the new born infant, institutionally transported for medical reasons, with the same basic protection (per F.M.V.S.S. 213) as that of a privately transported infant.

The transport incubators currently in use needlessly endanger the new born due to the lack of occupant protection, proper construction methods, and adequate anchoring systems. The principal reason given by some of the companies involved for the lack of compliance with child transport safety standards was due to the belief that the fragile nature of the new born renders known restraint techniques useless in providing the infant with a reasonable chance of survival. This is no longer the case.

The development of the moldable air-bag can provide even the most frail infant with a reasonable chance of survival as well as meet the special needs associated with the new born while under medical care. This is accomplished by providing the infant wit h a non-constricting pouch made of small air-bags that can be positioned within a larger bag and the air removed from same, thus locking into a customized shape (pouch). This system of restraint is more clearly described in the attached engineering anal ysis and patent disclosure.

As this is a well established industry, resistance to change by the manufacturers is substantial and is the principal reason for this petition. The medical personnel directly responsible for the new born, however, greatly support the upgrading of the sa fety standards and equipment. The manufacturers belief that this upgrading would not be profitable enough has placed transport safety as a low or non-existent priority. It is believed that the only way to insure that transport safety for the medically distressed infant is to receive the needed priority by the manufacturers is though the establishment of safety standards or the enforcement of F.M.V.S.S. 213 in this area.

Marginalia: Checked w/ Hayes 7/20 is submitting separate petition to administration

ID: 11445JEG

Mr. Michael Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, AOccupant Crash Protection,@ with respect to cut-off devices for air bags. Your letter addresses NHTSA's May 1995 final rule in which we decided to permit manufacturers, until September 1, 1997, the option of installing a manual device that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side air bag in certain passenger cars.

You ask whether a system you have developed "qualif[ies] as an automatic cutoff, and therefore should be permissible under FMVSS 208." The following discussion explains that the system you describe is permissible under FMVSS 208 and that it is unnecessary to determine whether the system is "automatic."

You described your system as consisting of:

. . . a special rearward-facing child seat which, when properly installed in the vehicle, disables the passenger airbag. . . . Attached to the child seat is a special strap and buckle tongue. The vehicle is equipped with a buckle receiver installed under the front of the passenger seat (installed upon request by a Porsche dealer). When the buckle tongue is inserted into the buckle receiver, a signal is sent to the airbag control unit disabling the passenger airbag. Since the disablement function is engaged during the process of installing the child seat in the car, and is disengaged as part of the process of removing the child seat from the car, we believe it qualifies as Aautomatic.@

You also stated that Asince the special buckle is permanently attached to the child seat, the air bag can be disabled only when the child seat is properly installed,@ and that Athe buckle is different from the other seat belt buckles used by Porsche, so disablement of the air bag using a normal seat belt is not possible.@

In analyzing whether your device is permissible under Standard No. 208, it is not necessary to determine whether the device is "automatic" or "manual." That dichotomy, which was used by the agency in previous discussions of cutoff devices, simply reflects an underlying inquiry as to whether a given cutoff device would create the possibility of a vehicle being tested under Standard No. 208 both with the device in the on position and with the device in the off position. The particular manual devices considered by the agency during its rulemaking all created that possibility. Your device, whether "manual" or "automatic," does not raise that possibility.

Prior to the rulemaking to permit certain manual cutoff devices, Standard No. 208 did not explicitly address cutoff devices. The issue arose in response to growing concern about the danger to infants in rear-facing child seats from passenger side air bags. The possibility of manufacturers providing certain kinds of manual cutoff devices (e.g., on-off switches) raised a test condition issue. The standard=s dynamic crash test could be run with the device on or off, and the issue was which way the test should be run. Based on the language and purposes of Standard No. 208, NHTSA concluded that the dynamic crash test requirement must be met regardless of whether a manual cutoff device was on or off. Since the standard=s crash test requirements presumably could not be met with the air bag deactivated, the standard effectively prohibited these manual cutoff devices. See 59 FR 51160, October 7, 1994.

Based on the information provided in your letter, a vehicle equipped with your system would not be tested with the air bag deactivated. Your device operates in a fundamentally different manner from the type of manual device discussed in the recent rulemaking. This is because, with your device, the only situation in which an air bag would be deactivated is when a child seat is located in the front seat. Since the Standard No. 208 test is conducted only with a 50th percentile male dummy located in the front seat, a vehicle equipped with your device could satisfy Standard No. 208 without creating the possibility of a test condition in which the air bag is deactivated.

It is true that this result is consistent with the agency's description of devices we characterized as "automatic." In the October 1994 notice, NHTSA explained that "automatic" cutoff devices were allowed by Standard No. 208. The agency contemplated that Amanufacturers would design these devices so that they would automatically ensure that the front passenger air bag is activated during the barrier crash test. . . [whenever]. . . a 50th percentile adult male dummy is in the front seat.@ So while there is the similarity that Standard No. 208 would be met without two possible test conditions, our concept of "automatic" presupposed a system meeting the Standard No. 208 tests with the 50th percentile male dummy in the front seat.

Similarly, as NHTSA explained in a June 14, 1995, letter to GenCorp Aerojet, Standard No. 208 Adoes not preclude the use of automatic cutoff devices for passenger air bags, so long as the devices ensure that the air bag automatically deploys under the specific dynamic crash conditions specified in the standard.@ The agency noted that these conditions include a specified barrier crash test, with a 50th percentile male dummy properly positioned in the seat.

I should add that the rear-facing child seat you describe is a Achild restraint system@ as defined in Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems@ (49 CFR '571.213), and thus subject to all applicable requirements of that standard. Further, in a compliance test governed by the requirements of Standard 213, NHTSA will test the child restraint using only a vehicle lap belt to attach the system to the standard seat assembly used for such tests. The special strap and buckle will not be attached. (See S5.3.2 and S6.1.2.1.1(a).)

I would like to conclude by noting that, in our rulemaking to permit manual cutoff devices, we decided to permit such devices for only a limited period of time. In the intervening time, we believed it was possible that manufacturers could develop and introduce fully automatic cutoff devices, i.e., ones that would work without any action by the driver and for all rear facing infant restraints, as well as in other special situations where it would be beneficial to deactivate the air bag. We remain hopeful that such systems will be introduced in the foreseeable future. In the short term, however, we recognize that a system such as the one you describe could provide safety benefits. While drivers would need a special infant restraint with an extra buckle and would need to remember to latch the buckle, the system would provide a means by which the driver could deactivate the air bag while transporting a rear facing infant restraint in the front seat.

I hope this information is helpful to you. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Mr. Edward Glancy of my staff at the above address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:208 d:3/15/96

ID: 1984-3.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/17/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: W. R. Kittle -- Director, Vehicle Safety and Emissions, Chrysler Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is to acknowledge receipt of your petition dated July 20, 1984, for a determination that the noncompliance therein described with Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 110 is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

Paragraph S4.3 of this standard requires that the specified placard show the recommended tire size designation. Chrysler has provided labels on 11,500 passenger cars which show an incorrect recommended minimum tire size. Thus, these labels state "P215-7OR15" but the correct information is "P205-75R15." However, Chrysler is mailing correct placards "on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles."

By providing the corrective placard, Chrysler has remedied the noncompliance. Because the noncompliance no longer exists, the question of whether it has a consequential relationship to safety is moct. The remaining question is the adequacy of the notification which Chrysler has provided owners of the affected vehicles. Because the corrective action is such that it may be easily accomplished by the owner (affixing the gummed placard to the car), the agency has concluded that any deviation of the text of the notice from the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 would be a technical violation only. Therefore, NHTSA does not intend to seek re-notice or civil penalties for such a violation. Consequently, the agency intends no further action on your petition.

The agency's conclusions apply to the facts of this case only and do not necessarily represent the agency's posture in future cases involving forms of notification other than specified by Part 577, for noncompliances.

SINCERELY,

July 20, 1984

Diane Steed, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Steed:

In accordance with the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and 49 CFR Part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance, Chrysler Corporation herewith submits a Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of Section 151 of the Act and 49 CFR Part 577, Defect and Noncompliance Notification, on the grounds that the subject condition is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

The NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation was initially notified of this condition and Chrysler's intention to petition for exemption through our submission of a Noncompliance Information Report dated May 23, 1984.

Sincerely,

W. R. Kittle -- CHRYSLER CORPORATION

Enclosure

PETITION FOR EXEMPTION

Applicant

Chrysler Corporation, located in Detroit, Michigan 48288 and incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.

Affected Vehicles

Exemption is sought for a total of approximately 11,500 vehicles produced by Chrysler Corporation for sale in the United States. The involved vehicles are 1984 Dodge Diplomat and Plymouth Gran Fury passenger cars produced from mid-September, 1983 through late-April, 1984.

Noncompliance for Which Exemption Is Sought

Chrysler Corporation petitions to be exempted from the notification, remedy, and further reporting requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act for a discrepancy in the minimum tire size designation exhibited by the tire placard provided on the subject vehicles as required by S4.3 of FMVSS 110, Tire Selection and Rims, on the basis that the discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety.

Specifically, the discrepancy is that the provided tire placard displays the recommended minimum tire size as P215/70R15, whereas it should designate P205/75R15 which is the actual size of the tire installed on these vehicles. All other information shown on the placard is correct. The enclosure shows copies of both the improper and proper placards for the subject vehicles.

Data, Views, and Arguments Supporting This Petition for Exemption

Chrysler's position that the subject discrepancy is inconsequential in relation to motor vehicle safety is based on the following evaluation factors:

1) The installed P205/75R15 tire is adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. Its load rating exceeds the maximum vehicle capacity loading on the tire by a substantial margin -- 21%.

2) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is also adequate for the subject vehicles in all regards. It is listed in the Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles as an allowable tire, and is in fact specified as the minimum size tire for fleet versions of these vehicles.

3) The load carrying capacity of the placard designated P215/70R15 tire is greater than that of the installed P205/75R15 tire.

4) The subject placard information creates no concern regarding potential improper tire selection because: a) The placard designated P215/70R15 tire is available and suitable for use on these vehicles.

b) Sidewalls of the installed tires display the intended P205/75R15 minimum size designation.

c) The Operator's Manual provided in these vehicles properly specifies the P205/75R15 tire as the minimum size tire.

5) Chrysler is not aware of any owner complaints, field reports, or allegations of hazardous circumstances relating to tire placard information on the subject vehicles.

6) Application of the incorrect placard to the subject vehicles was the result of an inadvertent design release error. A placard intended only for fleet vehicles was mistakenly also released for non-fleet vehicles.

7) Existence of the subject condition was detected during routine evaluation of a production vehicle. Chrysler then took immediate, expedited action to institute use of the correct placards for vehicle assembly plant installation.

8) Chrysler is mailing correct placards on a customer satisfaction basis to owners of all subject vehicles shipped prior to production correction. This is to avoid confusing or misleading an owner who may rely on the placard information when selecting replacement tires.

Summary

We believe that the information provided herein clearly demonstrates that the effect of the subject discrepancy in tire placard information on the subject vehicles is inconsequential with respect to motor vehicle safety. It is Chrysler's evaluation that the discrepant information creates no safety-related concern with respect to either tire loading or replacement tire selection.

Existence of the discrepant tire placard information was totally inadvertant and not a deliberate attempt to evade Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements. Upon discovery of the condition, Chrysler Corporation took immediate action to correct it in production and minimize the number of vehicles produced with the discrepant tire placard information.

Therefore, in spite of good faith and due care efforts by Chrysler Corporation, a number of production vehicles were manufactured and shipped with the discrepant tire placard information. Chrysler Corporation is notifying affected owners of the condition and providing them replacement placards on a customer satisfaction basis. We respectfully request that this Petition for Exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of the Act relative to these vehicles be granted.

[Illustrations Omitted]

Correct Placard

Wrong Placard Enclosure

ID: nht87-2.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/13/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; SIGNATURE UNAVAILABLE; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Yueh-An Chen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan Republic of China

Dear Mr. Chen:

This is in reply to your letter of June 5, 1987, asking whether certain rear lighting arrangements are acceptable under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have submitted a diagram showing four lamps on either side of the vertical centerline of the rear of the car. The most inboard lamps, denoted "R", are the backup lamp system. Yue Loong contemplates four different functions for the remaining three sys tems of lamps, "A", "B", "C", and "D", "E", "F" (inboard to outboard) and asks about acceptability.

1. In the first system, ABC or DEF will serve the respective turn signal functions. All lamps would serve as hazard warning signal lamps and stop lamps. Standard No. 108 generally does not prohibit lamp clusters from performing multiple functions. This s ystem is permissible as long as ABC and DEF meet all Standard No. 108's requirements for turn, hazard warning, and stop signals when tested in those modes. Your diagram, however, does not indicate which, if any, of these lamps provide the taillamp functi on that Standard No. 108 also requires for the rear of motor vehicles. Therefore, lamps ABC and DEF would have to meet the taillamp requirements as well.

2. The second system differs from the first in that the hazard warning system would not operate through all six lamps of the turn signal system, but only through the two most outboard lamps. This system is permissible, as Standard No. 108 does nor mandat e use of all turn signal lamps for the hazard warning signal mode, requiring only "at least one" on each side of the vehicle, front and rear.

3. The third system differs from the second in that the two most outboard lamps would no longer be part of the stop lamp system. We view this arrangement as permissible. Standard No. 108 requires that stop lamps, turn signal lamps, and taillamps be locat ed "as far apart as practicable". In a literal sense this would appear to require stacking the lamps vertically at the outboard edges of the vehicle, but NHTSA has not adopted a design-restrictive interpretation of this requirement. The determination of practicability is initially that of the manufacturer, but it is subject to review and comment by this agency in instances where such a determination appears clearly erroneous. Where the turn signal system (or part of it) is located at the outboard edges of the vehicle, and the stop lamps and taillamps are adjacent to it, or to each other, we view the "practicability" requirement as met.

4. The fourth system differs from the third in that the stop lamp system would be either that of the systems discussed in items 2 and 3 above, and operating according to Section 3 of your letter. Either system would be acceptable, subject to the operatio nal restriction with turn signal lamps that I shall discuss in my response to Section 3.

Next, you have presented four kinds of flashing arrangements for the turn signal lamps. You ask (a) which could meet Standard No. 108, and (b) which could meet Standard No. 108 assuming a flash cycle of 1-4 seconds. With respect to (a), all four would ap pear to be acceptable. The standard allows multiple turn signal lamps either to flash simultaneously, or sequentially in the direction of the turn. With respect to (b), Standard No. 108 specifies that a turn signal flasher provide not less than 60 and no t more than 120 cycles per minute. This translates to not less than 1 and not more than 2 cycles per second. This requirement would have to be met by all lamps in arrangement i.e. where all lamps operate simultaneously. When operating sequentially, each lamp individually would be subject to the restrictions with the result that the inclusive cycle for a three lamp system would be not less than 3 seconds and not more than 6 seconds. Therefore, arrangements (a), (b), and (c) would meet this requirement as suming a flash cycle of 4 seconds, but arrangement (d) would not, being restricted to a cycle of 2 seconds maximum.

In your third question, or Section 3 as you term it, you have combined the conditions of your first two questions and attached a table of "detailed operating states" of the rear lamps, which incorporates three attached figures, with the question whether it would comply with Standard No. 108. Two of the Operating States illustrated denote the stop lamp "on" and, individually, the right or left turn signal as "on". Standard No. 108 does not allow simultaneous activation of the stop lamp and turn signal la mp when the stop signal is optically combined with the turn signal, In that event, the circuit must be such that the stop signal cannot be turned on in the turn signal which is flashing (paragraph 4.2, SAE Standard J586c Stop Lamps, August 1970, incorpor ated by reference in Standard No. 108). Our other comment concerns "Fig. a", "Fig. b", and "Fig. c" depicting flash cycles of the turn signal lamp;. As we noted earlier, the individual lamps are subject to the cycle minima and maxima of 1 to 2 cycles per second, and none of the rates depicted in the three Figures appears to meet the minimum requirement of 1 second. Otherwise, the "Operating State" table appears acceptable.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

June 5, 1987

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

Dear Mr. Jones,

On Jan. 23, 1986 we consulted NHTSA about the problems of headlamps systems, and received your reply letter of May. 8, 1986. The information was very useful to us, thank you again for your kind assistance.

Now, we still have some questions about the turn signal lamps and other rear lamps, will you please kindly give us your suggestions as soon as possible?

The feature of rear lamps of the vehicle is shown as fig. 1. In the following conditions, which could meet the requirements of the FMVSS No. 108 and other related U.S.A. regulations?

1. As shown in Fig. 1, "R", is the backup lamp, and the lighting function of the other lamps "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F" are shown as Table 1. In the four cases, which could meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations?

2. As shown in Fig. 2, there are four kinds of flashing arrangements for the turn signal lamps "ABC" (LH) & "DEF" (RH). a. Which could meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations? b. If the period of flashing (t) 1 cycle = 1 - 4 sec. which could meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations?

3. Combining the conditions of section 1, 2, we set a detailed operating state of the rear lamps as shown in Table 2. Could it meet the requirements of U.S.A. regulations?

Your kind assistance and earlier reply will be highly appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Yueh-An Chen Division Head Planning Division SEE HARD COPY FOR GRAPHIC INFORMATION

ID: 86-5.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Toshio Maeda

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the safety belt contact force provision of the comfort and convenience requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that Nissan is concerned about the requirements of S10.6 contained in the final rule published on March 21, 1986. You noted that a sentence contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was not included in the final rule and asked whether this sentence had been inadvertently omitted.

In addition, you asked the agency to clarify the effect of the omitted sentence on belt systems which have less than 12 inches of webbing stored in the retractor once the belt is placed around the test dummy. You explained that Nissan considers the purpose of the requirement in the omitted sentence to be elimination of belt drag before measuring the belt contact force. You explained that requiring a manufacturer to pull 12 inches of webbing from the retractor before the belt connect test would require redesign of Nissan's belt systems, even though those systems meet the safety belt adjustment requirements of the standard. You asked the agency to provide that a manufacturer can pull the maximum allowable length of the belt stored on the retractor, rather than 12 inches, prior to conducting the belt contact force test.

As explained in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the sentence contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. NHTSA agrees that the purpose of the belt webbing pull requirement can be adequately net by pulling our the maximum allowable amount of the belt, when the belt has less than 12 inches of available additional webbing. Pulling the belt in this way will ensure that the belt retractor is working and webbing drag is reduced. Thus, the agency has modified the requirement to provide that prior to measuring the belt contact force the agency will pull out 12 inches of webbing or the maximum amount of webbing available when the maximum amount is less than 12 inches.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

JULY 30, 1986 Ref: W-187-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: 49 CFR Part 571.208 (Docket No. 74-14; Notice 43) REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND, IF NECESSARY, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc, herewith requests the agency's interpretation of language in the above-reference provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," Further, if NHTSA cannot agree that Nissan's understanding is an acceptable interpretation of the requirement, we subsequently request your treatment of this letter as a petition for rulemaking.

1) Section 10.7 of the final rule for Docket No. 74-14, Notice 43, gives the following directions for testing seat belt contact force:

"Pull the belt webbing three inches from the test dummy's chest and release until the webbing is within 1 inch of the test dummy's chest and measure the belt contact force."

This language differs from the language in S.10.6 in Notice 42, which at first gives directions to; "pull 12 inches of belt webbing from the retractor and then release it, allowing the belt webbing to return to the dummy's chest."

(Subsequent language is consistent in both Notice 42 and 43 versions.)

Nissan's question, therefore, is: was the omission of the Notice 42 language in Notice 43 intentional or not?

2) If the omission of that language from Notice 43 was unintentional, and the language is adopted as intended in Notice 42, Nissan's interpretation is that would be acceptable to pull out the maximum allowable length of belt webbing, in the event that 12 inches of belt webbing cannot be pulled out, before measuring belt contact force. Does NHTSA agree with and accept this interpretation?

Explanation of Nissan's Interpretation

According to the preamble of Docket 74-14, Notice 37, the purpose of the S10.6 provision is to eliminate the belt drag on the belt guide components before measuring the belt contact force, and not to measure the ability to pull 12 inches of webbing from the retractor, Nissan is not aware of any reasons to support additional requirements concerning belt adjustment beyond the requirements of MVSS 208 S7.1.

In Nissan's case, the explicit requirement that 12 inches of webbing must be pulled from the retractor would necessitate a complete redesign of some belt systems for our vehicles. We therefore believe that pulling the maximum allowable length of webbing should be allowable for cases where 12 inches cannot be pulled, We believe that such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the performance requirements of the standard.

As an aside, Nissan would also like to point out that for diagonal or 3-point automatic restraint systems which lack a belt guide, there is no need to pull out 12 inches of belt webbing length to eliminate belt guide drag.

3) As stated earlier, if the agency cannot agree that the rule's final language may be interpreted to allow the maximum allowable length of belt webbing to be pulled from the retractor, Nissan requests treatment of this request for interpretation as a Petition for Rulemaking to incorporate such language into S.10.7 of FMVSS 208.

In view of the extreme importance and urgency of NHTSA's response, we ask your utmost cooperation in treating this request expeditiously. Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington, D.C. staff is available at (202) 466-5284 if you have further questions. Moreover, I would appreciate your mailing a copy of your response to Mr. Hayashi in Washington, to ensure our quick receipt of NHTSA's answer. His address is as follows: Nissan Research & Development, Inc. 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Suite 707 Washington, D.C. 20006

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

TM:TH:mab

ID: nht76-2.41

DATE: 10/29/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Department of California Highway Patrol

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is a reply to your letter of September 16, 1976, referencing an opinion letter to you dated October 21, 1969, and asking whether it conflicts with an opinion letter to Ford Motor Company dated "December 5, 1975". (The true date of the letter is July 7, 1975, we do not know why your copy is dated otherwise).

The 1969 letter informed you that "if one compartment or lamp [in a multicompartment lamp] meets the photometric requirements [of Standard No. 108] the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore not regulated by . . . Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2.". The letter also stated that "lamps on a vehicle and not required by this standard are generally subject to regulation by the States." Our 1975 letter to Ford, on the other hand advised the company in effect that the performance of the entire multicompartment assembly was covered by Standard No. 108, and that section 25950(b), of the California Vehicle Code was preempted by it. You have asked whether our letter to Ford conflicts with our earlier letter to you.

There is no present conflict. In an amendment to Standard No. 108 effective January 1, 1973, (copy enclosed) the agency adopted paragraph S4.1.1.12 and figure 1 which established minimum photometric requirements that must be met by multicompartment tail, stop, and turn signal lamps. The act of establishing requirements for the additional compartments in a multicompartment lamp thus voided the 1969 letter to you and the interpretation to Ford is the correct one.

The Monarch taillamp, therefore, must meet the requirements of Table 1 of standard No. 108 and is not a lamp that is "in addition to the minimum required number" as that term is used in California Vehicle Code section 25950(b), which appears to have been amended in an effort to include it.

We appreciate your suggestion on an amendment to Standard No. 108 on lens color.

SINCERELY,

DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

September 16, 1976

File No.: 61.A218.A3107

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

We recently received a copy of Mr. James C. Schultz's opinion of December 3, 1975, to Ford Motor Company regarding the color of unlighted taillamps. This interpretation appears to conflict with the enclosed interpretation of October 21, 1969, we requested from NHTSA on a similar subject.

In answer to a question we raised on multicompartment lamps, Dr. Robert Brenner informed us that, "if one compartment or lamp meets the photometric requirements, the additional compartments or lamps are considered as additional lamps and are, therefore, not regulated by Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 except by S3.1.2". He also stated that "lamps on a vehicle, and not required by this standard, are generally subject to regulation by the states". These statements appear to mean that once a manufacturer meets the minimum requirements for taillamps for FMVSS No. 108, any additional lamps he chooses to add do not fall under that standard. With respect to the unlighted color of the minimum required lamps, we agree that we are preempted. However, in the case of the Ford lamp, the taillamp section in question was an additional one to which Ford, as an afterthought, attached an amber filter. This lamp was not needed to comply with the federal standards for taillamps, and was an additional lamp not governed by the federal standards as stated in the October 21, 1969, NHTSA interpretation. We, therefore, request that you reconsider whether the interpretation in your letter to Ford Motor Company was overly broad.

The color requirements of the Vehicle Code were amended last year and Section 25950(b) referred to in Ford Motor Company's letter now reads as follows:

"All lamps and reflectors visible from the rear of a vehicle shall be red, except that stop lamps, turn signal lamps and front side-marker lamps required by Section 25100 may show amber to the rear."

"This section applies to the color of a lamp whether lighted or unlighted, and to any reflector exhibiting or reflecting perceptible light of 0.05 candlepower or more per foot-candle of incident illumination, except that taillamps, stop lamps, and turn signal lamps that are visible to the rear may be white when unlighted () and, with respect to vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1974, only such lamps that are in addition to the minimum required number and are visible to the rear may be white or amber when unlighted."

Until 1961, the Vehicle Code color requirements applied to all lamps, whether lighted or unlighted. In that year, the Legislature amended the Code to permit rear lamps to be white when unlighted in view of the General Motors and Chrysler taillamps which, for styling purposes, had white lenses to blend in with the chrome trim on the rear fenders and bumpers. At that time, the visibility problem with the white lenses was not initially apparent. It was then found that, in at least one design, the white lens reflected so much sunlight during the daytime that it washed out much of the effectiveness of the red stoplamp and turn signal. The white lenses were not objectionable on lamps that supplemented the regular red lensed rear lamps, but they were not satisfactory as a total replacement for those lamps.

Even though we recognize NHTSA's preemption in allowing a manufacturer to use any unlighted lens color he wishes for the minimum required rear lamps, we have a strong objection to that position. Observations of stoplamps in the daytime have shown that those with white lenses are less effective in attracting another person's attention than a lamp of the same output with a red lens. It might be argued that this problem of reduced signal effectiveness does not apply to taillamps, since they are only lighted at nighttime. However, during high brightness day-time fog when lights were required on vehicles, the red taillamps are so dim that the white or amber lens covers become a safety hazard due to the high brightness masking of the red light.

We have no technical objection to a rear lamp lens being any color darker than red, because this would improve the contrast of the red signal against its background. We are highly concerned about the use of lenses that are lighter than the required red because of their effect in washing out the signal in daylight. Standard No. 108 already acknowledges this difference with respect to turn signals where amber is required to have more candlepower output than red for equivalent daytime effectiveness. You might wish to make observations yourself in comparing the daylight effectiveness of the red lens on the Monarch with that of the amber lens when the taillamps are turned on. Daytime observations of the white lens on the various Cadillac year models illustrate varying degrees of effectiveness depending upon the slant of the lens and the taillamp intensity.

We would appreciate hearing from you with respect to a clarification of the two interpretations. We also ask that NHTSA consider amending Standard No. 108 to prohibit taillamps and stoplamps from having a lens cover of white, amber, or any other color that has a lighter contrast with the signal than the red lens.

WARREN M. HEATH Commander Engineering Section

ID: 1985-04.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: C. A. France -- President, Converto Manufacturing

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. C. A. France President Converto Manufacturing P.O. Box 287 Cambridge City, Indiana 47327

This is in reply to your letter of July 18, 1985, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.

Converto produces the "Leav-A-Tainer." As you describe it this is "a truck mounted, hydraulically operated hoisting mechanism designed to handle detachable containers" The hoisting mechanism is mounted on top of regular truck or trailer frame rails. Converto has placed the rear lamps "as near the end of the...frame rails as practicable," but law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and Minnesota state that the lamps must be placed at the extreme end of the hoisting mechanism. You believe that is not feasible because the lamps will be destroyed when the hoist is In the dump position, and have asked for our opinion.

The basic location requirements established by Standard No. 108 for most truck or trailer rear lamps is, first, that they be "on the rear" and, second, that they be "as far apart as practicable." In these positions they afford the visual and signalling cues associated with their respective functions. Among those cues are the location of the rear end of the vehicle and indications of its width. However, there are configurations of commercial vehicles where literal compliance with the requirements so as to provide both of those cues is a physical impossibility, calling for a compromise. In those instances, it may be possible to locate the lights at the rear of the vehicle, but not to provide any indication of the vehicle's width or any lateral separation between the left and right sets of lights. Alternatively, it may be possible to place the lights so that they indicate the vehicle's width and are laterally separated, but at a location forward of the rear of the vehicle. In the case of your vehicle, there is the additional complication that locating the lights at the rear of the vehicle would appear to result in their being damaged or destroyed during the operation of the work performing equipment. You have interpreted Standard No. 108 as permitting mounting at the end of the frame rails, although the work-performing structure extends as much as 32 inches beyond the frame rails. The lamps, as you have located them, are "as far apart as practicable." The two States, as we understand it, are insisting that the lamps be mounted at the end of the work-performing structure where they would be "on the rear"; in that location, the lamps would appear to have to be bunched together because of the narrow width of the work-performing structure, and therefore would not be "as far apart as practicable" in the sense that Standard No. 108 intends. That is, there would be essentially no lateral separation between the sets of lights and no indication of the width of the vehicle.

We have concluded that the primary location requirement that the lamps be on the rear is more important than the secondary requirement of width location in the event of a conflict. In their present location, we question whether the lamps meet the requirement that they be visible throughout an angle from 45 degrees to the right to 45 degrees to the left. Further, with a container in place providing the 32-inch overhang, there may be certain angles of approach in which the lights become obscured and cannot be seen by a driver following too closely. Under paragraph S4.3.1.1 of Standard No. 108, if motor vehicle equipment such as the hoist prevents compliance with the visibility requirements of the standard, an auxiliary lamp meeting the visibility requirements may be provided. We suggest that you examine the possibility of installing lamps on the side of the hoist, close enough to the rear that they are not damaged when the hoist is in operation.

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

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

July 18, 1985 Mr. Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel - N.H.T.S.A. Room 5219 #400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

SUBJECT: Request for ruling for the location of lighting devices for truck mounted and semi-trailer "roll-off" tilt frame hoists under FMVSS 108

Dear Mr. Miller:

Converto Mfg. Co., Inc. manufactures roll-off tilt frame hoisting mechanisms commonly referred to as "roll-off tilt frame hoists"" under the trade name of "Leav-A-Tainer" This is a truck mounted, hydraulically operated hoisting mechanism designed to handle detachable containers of varying sizes and types. This system utilizes a frame that tilts hydraulically and a reeving cable system to power the container on and off the frame.

This hoisting system is either mounted on an existing truck chassis frame or is manufactured as a semi-trailer unit. In either event, the hoisting mechanism itself is mounted on top of the regular truck or trailer frame rails.

Converto has always believed it was complying with Federal lighting standards by placing the rear lights as near the rear end of the truck or trailer frame rails as practicable. However, several of our cutomers have encountered problems with local law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. These agencies state the lights must be placed at the extreme rear end of the hoisting mechanism rather than at the end of the truck or trailer frame. This would seem to be impracticable to us since the design of the equipment is such that is necessary to extend the hoisting mechanism beyond the end of the truck or trailer main frame. When the hoist is in its fullest raised position to either discharge or to take the container aboard, the hoist must pivot at the rear of the truck so that the rear end of the hoist positions itself on the ground for both stability and control of the container. To attempt to locate lights on that part of the hoist would result in destroying the lights when the hoist was in the drmp position. For this reason, we presently locate the lights approximately 32" inward from the end of the hoisting mechanism itself.

Photographs of actual hoist showing this product in both the extended and retracted positions are included for your information. Several pieces of product literature are also enclosed to help you better understand the product, how it operates, and to depict what our problem is.

We certainly hope you will be able to give us a ruling for this application so that we may assist our customers with the problems they have encountered.

Should you have questions or need additional information or clarification of any point, please contact me.

Sincerely, C.A. France President CAF/bc

Enclosures 85-97

ID: nht79-2.4

DATE: 03/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/21/76 letter from S.P. Wood to Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TEXT:

March 28, 1979

Mr. Moe Pare, Jr. Director of Design Cars & Concepts, Inc. 12500 E. Grand River Brighton, Michigan 48116

Dear Mr. Pare:

This responds to your March 2, 1979, letter concerning the definition of the vehicle sub-classification, "convertible." your letter included several Figures of various vehicle designs and asked whether each would be considered a "convertible" by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a "sun roof" or a "Hurst hatch roof" do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location (April 21, 1976, letter of interpretation enclosed). This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the "A" and "B" pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.

Given this interpretation, only the Fiat X-19 vehicle design illustrated in your Figure 5 would qualify as a "convertible." Each vehicle design in your other illustrations (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9) include fixed, rigid structural components joining the "A" and "B" pillar sections of the vehicles and, therefore, would not be classified as convertibles. Likewise, the designs would not be considered "open-body type vehicles" (49 CFR 571.3) for the same reason; the structural member, whether hidden or not, would be considered part of the vehicle top. Also, I would point out that the "open-body vehicle" designation generally refers to multi-purpose passenger vehicles such as "jeeps" or "dune buggies."

I hope this clarification is responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure (See 4/21/76 letter from S.P. Wood to Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.)

March 2, 1979

Mr. Hugh Oates Office of the Chief Council N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Hugh:

Per our telephone conversation, I have become confused regarding the legal definition for a "convertible body". At one time I had felt that any vehicle with structure extending from "A" to "B" pillar would not be classified as a convertible; however, I am unable to locate documentation to that effect.

The only definition I can locate is carried in Part 571.3(b) of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards, which defines an "open-body type vehicle" (a term which is used interchangeably with "convertible" in FMVSS No. 208.S4.1.1.3.2. and No. 208.S4.1.2.3.2.) as a vehicle with no occupant compartment top or one which can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience.

By both definitions, I feel that Figure 1, showing a Mazda RX7 with a removable roof panel, does not qualify as a convertible. As this vehicle has roof side rail structures that go directly from "A" to "B" pillar and a full exterior roof stamping, this car, I feel, ought be classified as a coupe.

Similarly, the Renault Gordini (Figure 2) has a much larger opening (extending from "A" to "C" pillar); however, as the "opening" is still surrounded by roof structure (in plan view), I feel secure in assuming that such a vehicle is a coupe also.

Please look at Figures 3 and 4. These photographs show a 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix with a Hurst hatch roof, and a 1979 Chrysler Cordoba with an ASC (American Sunroof Corporation) hatch roof installation. These roofs are similar in that both rely on two "U"-shape openings cut into the roof in a manner that would allow an exterior "roof panel section" along the vehicle's longitudinal centerline. These roofs are installed on "coupe" bodies, but as part of this installation the entire "occupant compartment top" /refer to Part 571.3(b)/, from left, side DLO to right, side DLO, is never removed (either by the manufacturer or user). Again, using both mentioned definitions, I feel these vehicles fall outside the classification of a convertible or "open-body type vehicle".

Now examine Figure 5 showing a Fiat X-19 targa top. As is clear from the photo, this vehicle has "A" and "B" pillars with transverse (to the plan view centerline) structure extending from both "A" and "B" pillars, but clearly has a completely removable "occupant compartment top" with no structure at all between the "A" and "B" pillars (above the beltline). Using both above definitions, this car is clearly a convertible.

Figure 6 shows the roof structure employed on a 1977 Corvette. While this car does have centerline reinforcement member, it is not part of the exterior roof panel sections. Because this center member is not part of the roof panel, and is usually hidden from view, I feel this component takes on the character of a "central (in side view)" reinforcing member and is therefore more closely related to the conventional old style convertible chassis reinforcements than the vehicle's occupant compartment top.

Finally I have come to my real area of concern, shown in Figures 7, 8, and 9. These Cars & Concepts roofs have been granted U.S. Patent No. 4,138,155 which is based largely on the Cars & Concepts installation requirement that the entire occupant compartment top (from right, side DLO to left, side DLO) is completely removed. Similar to the Corvette, our roof also uses a hidden centerline structure which takes the place of the needed chassis reinforcements. Also similar is the "panel to panel" configuration used in our roofs (see Page 2 of Figure 6). These two removable panels comprise (virtually) the entire "occupant compartment top". A basic difference between our roof and that of the Corvette is that our roof has a full width exterior roof panel at the windshield header (as does the X-19), and Chevrolet never actually removes the entire occupant compartment top (including center reinforcement; this center reinforcement is part of the windshield header structure and is basic to the vehicle's construction) of the Corvette.

To summarize, it seems obvious to me that a Fiat X-19 is a convertible, while a coupe with a sunroof is not. It does not seem to me, however, that a car with a Hurst hatch which does not remove the entire occupant compartment top (roof panel) is a convertible. By the same token, a Corvette never exists without an overhead centerline reinforcement member, but the entire exterior roof portion is removable creating a vehicle that fits the N.H.T.S.A.'s criterion for an "open-body". Finally on the Cars & Concepts roof installation, the entire occupant section of a coupe is removed (at this stage it is clearly a targa type vehicle); then in place of chassis reinforcement, we add a centerline structural member and install a removable two piece occupant compartment top.

My question obviously is: between the Fiat, the Corvette, Hurst's roof, and our roof, which (if any) would the N.H.T.S.A. consider a convertible? Thank you for your consideration; please call with any questions.

Sincerely,

Moe Pare, Jr. Director of Design

MP/dma

cc: D. Draper

ID: nht81-3.10

DATE: 08/25/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 25 1981 NOA-30

Roger E. Maugh, Director Automotive Safety Office Environmental and Safety Engineering Staff Ford Motor Company The American Road Dearborn Michigan 48121

Dear Mr. Maugh:

This responds to your letter of July 31, 1981, to Hugh Oates of my staff requesting an interpretation concerning Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You ask whether you are correct in your belief that the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 of the standard apply to the seat belt anchorages used in your planned 1982-model Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2.

Paragraph S4.3.1 of the Standard specifies location requirements for the seat belt anchorages for Type 1 seat belt assemblies and the pelvic portion of Type 2 seat belt assemblies. Paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies in those installations in which the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame, and the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.2 apply in installations in which the seat belt does bear upon the seat frame. On the 1982 Continental passenger cars, the buckle end of the seat belt assembly passes through a "console support structure" which is connected to the bottom of the seat frame. However, you contend that since the console support structure is not a structural component of the seat frame, the seat belt does not bear upon the seat frame and, consequently, that paragraph S4.3.1.1 applies.

Your interpretation of paragraphs S4.3.1.1 and S4.3.1.2 is correct. The phrase "bears upon the seat frame" as used in paragraph S4.3.1.2 refers to seat belt assemblies in which the seat belt presses or rests directly on the main structural frame of the seat. As illustrated in the photographs supplied in your letter, the seat belt in the 1982-model Continental passenger cars does not bear upon the structural seat frame. Rather, the belt rests on the console support frame which is not a necessary structural component of the main seat frame, but is merely attached to the seat frame at the bottom on the inboard side. Since the seat belt is located to the side of the seat frame and does not bear upon the structural seat frame itself, the requirements of paragraph S4.3.1.1 apply to the location of the seat belt anchorages used in the 1982 Continental passenger cars rather than the requirements of Paragraph S4.3.1.2.

We note that the console support frame could easily have been attached to the transmission tunnel rather than to the seat frame. In that case, the seat belt obviously would not bear upon the seat frame. However, with such a design, the frame supporting the belt would not move with the seat, and the driver could have problems reaching the belt and positioning it properly when the seat is in certain positions. The design of the passenger seat and seat belt assembly in the 1982 Continental is very desirable because attachment of the console support frame to the seat makes the seat belt very accessible in all seat positions. The fact that the console was attached to the seat frame for convenience purposes does not mean that the console is part of the seat frame within the meaning of S4.3.1.2.

The original intent of the location requirements of FMVSS 210 was to enhance belt performance with acceptable belt comfort and convenience. The specific requirements that are the subject of this interpretation were intended to ensure that belts would not develop excessive slack if a seat structural member bent or failed during a crash, and to reduce the likelihood that the lap belt would move into the abdominal area during a crash. We trust that Ford has adequately tested the configuration that is proposed here to ensure proper performance in a crash situation.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 31, 1981

Hugh F. Oates, Jr., Esq. Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oates:

This letter is to request concurrence in Ford Motor Company's view that compliance to section S4.3 "Location" of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 properly should be evaluated under subsection S4.3.1.1 for passenger seats of a new design being introduced in 1982 model Continental passenger cars. The applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1, rather than subsection S4.3.1.2, of Standard No. 210 was discussed between Ford personnel and you and Mr. R. Hitchcock of the Administration in Dearborn yesterday. At that time you were shown the new seat design and told why we believe it presents the possibility that a compliance tester might erroneously conclude that it should be evaluated against the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2. If anchorage locations of these vehicles were to be evaluated under that subsection, rather than subsection S4.3.1.1, the location specifications could not be met.

The potential for misunderstanding arises, we believe, out of the fact that the bottom of the seat frame has connected to its inboard side a console support structure through which the inboard (buckle) end of the seat belt assembly passes. The console support structure is intended to provide a base for a "mini-console" that is to be installed on the inboard side of each half of a split bench seat. It is not a structural member of the seat frame and therefore, in our opinion, the fact that the inboard end of the belt would bear on the structure of the console support should not result in the anchorage locations being evaluated under the criteria of subsection S4.3.1.2 which apply only to installations in which the "...belt bears upon the seat frame...".

As may be seen from sketches provided by the Administration to contractors evaluating compliance to Standard No. 210 (Attachment A), the routing of the seat belts contemplated by the drafters of the standard as "bearing upon the seat frame" involve configurations wholly unlike that in question. Moreover, routing the inboard end of the seat belt assembly through a console support structure that moves with the seat frame has the salutary effect of helping to best position the belt and improving belt accessibility, no matter what position the seat is adjusted to. Ford could obviate all risk of misapplication of subsection S4.3.1.2 to the new seat design by physically modifying the console support so that the inboard end of the seat belt would not bear upon its structure, but only on the trim cover. For the reasons discussed above, we respectfully submit that we should not be required to do so.

Furnished for your reference are Attachment B which depicts the lower seat frame for the 1982 Continental, Attachment C, the console support and its cover, Attachment D, the untrimmed console support attached to the seat frame, and Attachment E, a finished seat assembly.

In order to avoid needless misunderstanding about the compliance of these seat belt assemblies to the anchorage location provisions of Standard No. 210 after production commences in mid-August, I should appreciate receiving the Administration's prompt confirmation of our analysis of the applicability of subsection S4.3.1.1 to the newly designed seat and console assembly, or your expression of any grounds on which the Administration may disagree with that analysis. Sincerely

Roger E. Maugh

Attachments

ID: nht76-3.45

DATE: 03/12/76

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

TO: Rockwell International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Rockwell International's February 17, 1976, question whether the addition by a manufacturer of a computer power relay unit (CPR) to an antilock system already installed on a vehicle in satisfaction of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, is prohibited by @ 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2)). Section 108(a)(2) provides that, with one exception, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As you describe the CPR function, it is added to a functioning antilock system to sense improper electrical signals and to prevent them from causing the antilock system to release the brakes when they should remain applied. The CPR acts by discontinuing power to the antilock system and warning the driver.

Section 108(a)(2) has been construed by the NHTSA to apply to situations where a system installed in compliance with a safety standard is defeated so that it no longer possesses the performance capabilities considered necessary by the agency and set forth in its standards. The agency has determined that some modifications can be made (e.g., substitution of a bumper that meets current requirements in place of a bumper that meets earlier requirements) as long as the performance required by the standard is met. In the case of your CPR, the issue is whether the addition of a device that shuts off the antilock function under some malfunction circumstances would be considered "knowingly [rendering] inoperative" an element of Standard No. 121.

As you describe the CPR function, it would not. As in other standards, Standard No. 121 contemplates failure of the regulated system and provides for the safest operation of the system under such circumstances. For example, the standard calls for low-air and antilock-failure warning signals (S5.1) and for uninterrupted operation of the air brake system in the event of electrical failure in the antilock system (S5.5). Antilock manufacturers have also provided logic circuits in their systems to sense certain malfunctions and take corrective action. The fact that the Rockwell CPR is additional protection against malfunction that is being added to systems already installed is not a significant distinction. From your description, the CPR does not defeat the designed performance called for by Standard No. 121, and its installation by a manufacturer would not constitute a violation of @ 108(a)(2).

YOURS TRULY,

February 17, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Office of Defects Investigation

Subject: Rockwell SKID-TROL(R) Request for Interpretation

Under the date of July 10, 1975, Rockwell International wrote to NHTSA advising of a safety related anti-lock problem that existed on some units. Also included in that letter (copy attached) was a reference to a Rockwell developed in-vehicle diagnostic aid that would enhance the operation and safety of the wheel anti-lock device.

This unit is known as the Computer Power Relay (CPR Unit) and its function is to detect unwanted intermittent signals that may be encountered due to mechanical problems, such as loose wheel bearings or misadjusted wheel end parts.

A more detailed description of its function is as follows:

* The CPR unit has been designed to operate in conjunction with Rockwell's SKID-TROL(R) wheel anti-lock system and detects improper sensor-to-rotor gap as soon as it occurs without the brakes being applied. Further, it gives the operator warning of the condition and returns the vehicle to the manual braking mode. A return to manual braking occurs when the unit detects an abnormal solenoid switching that occurs before the brake pedal is depressed. If such a condition should occur, the CPR removes the power to all wheel anti-lock units on the vehicle until the unit is purposely reset and the condition causing the abnormal switching is corrected.

Since July 1975, the unit has been regularly installed with Rockwell SKID-TROL(R) systems with successful results. We have, however, been asked by a customer as to conflict with Sec. 103 (2) (A) of the Safety Act, Public Law 93-492, which reads in part "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard."

The effect of the CPR unit is the same as that of the normal fail-safe portion of an anti-lock device, except that it has the added advantages of detecting unwanted intermittent signals and is resetable.

In any event, Rockwell International would appreciate NHTSA's interpretation that the unit does not conflict with Sec. 103, paragraph (2) (A) of the Safety Act.

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS

G. J. Flannery Director - Government Relations

ATTACH.

July 10, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Office of Defects Investigation

Attached is a copy of our letter to vehicle manufacturers in connection with a safety related wheel anti-lock problem that exists on some units in use and could exist in the future as the result of misassembly in maintenance. Also attached is a listing of vehicle manufacturers to whom this notice has been sent.

The wheel anti-lock system is performing as designed and the malfunction results from mechanical causes rather than electrical. It is expected that the individual vehicle manufacturers receiving this notice will advise NHTSA of the actual number of units released to the field. Rockwell International estimates that the major number of suspect units were assembled during the first few weeks of production of FMVSS #121 type units. A cutoff date of July 1, 1975 has been established to insure that all suspect units are corrected. Rockwell International will advise NHTSA of the total units shipped to vehicle manufacturers as soon as it is available.

Included in the attached notification is a recommendation that wheel bearings should be properly adjusted and wheel ends checked with a Service Aid Tester after maintenance.

Rockwell International has also developed in-vehicle diagnostic equipment that will be available in the near future that detects mechanical problems affecting the wheel anti-lock system.

Rockwell International will, in the interest of highway safety, provide this diagnostic equipment without charge to operators for use in conjunction with Rockwell International wheel anti-lock systems unitl they can be incorporated into new production vehicles.

Rockwell International will continue to make an all out effort to assist vehicle manufacturers in remedying the problem contained in the attached notification.

ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AUTOMOTIVE OPERATIONS

G. J. Flannery Director - Government Relations