ID: aiam5048

"Dear Mr. Hopkins: This responds to your letter of August 3, 1992 seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR 571.124). More specifically, your letter sought 'confirmation of (y)our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems ... which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS"; "124.' As explained in detail below, your understanding is incorrect Standard No. 124 applies to all listed vehicle types, regardless of whether their engine control systems use electronic or mechanical means to control the engine. The purpose of Standard No. 124 is to reduce deaths and injuries caused by vehicles that continue to supply fuel to the engine when there is a malfunction in the accelerator control system. To ensure that drivers could bring vehicles that experience a problem with the accelerator control system to a controlled stop, instead of having the vehicle continue to speed forward, Standard No. 124 requires that the vehicle's throttle return to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control and that the throttle return to idle whenever there is a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. The safety need for these requirements is the same for all vehicles, regardless of whether their accelerator control system is electronic, mechanical, or some other type of technology. S4.1 sets forth the following definitions: Throttle means the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver-operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed. Fuel metering device means the carburetor, or in the case of certain engines, the fuel injector, fuel distributor, or fuel injection pump. Driver-operated accelerator control system means all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force. You said in your letter that the electronic treadle assembly in your company's accelerator control system 'modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to control engine power.' You asserted that the electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. Based on the information provided in your letter, we agree. Standard No. 124 expressly provides that the throttle must be part of the fuel metering device. In the example you have given, the electronically controlled fuel injectors, together with any pumps or other metering systems connected to those injectors, appear to be the 'fuel metering device.' Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the electronic treadle assembly would be considered to be part of the 'driver- operated accelerator control system,' because it is a vehicle component that regulates engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control. You went on to assert that no component of an electronically controlled diesel engine would be considered a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. We disagree. Standard No. 124 defines a throttle as 'the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver-operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed.' Every engine design of which we are aware, including electric, diesel, conventional gasoline, and Wankel rotary gasoline, has a component that controls the engine speed in response to inputs from the driver. That component is the throttle. Indeed, an engine design without a throttle would not allow the driver to control the engine speed. NHTSA has already addressed the applicability of Standard No. 124 to electronic accelerator control systems. In an August 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Koji Tokunaga of Isuzu (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 would apply to a proposed electronic accelerator control system. In a November 9, 1988 letter to Mr. J.E. Carr of Caterpillar (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 applies to an electronically controlled diesel engine. Hence, the issue of how Standard No. 124 applies to electronic accelerator control systems has been settled at least since 1988. Given the broad language used in the standard, the agency's previous interpretations of the standard, and the compelling safety need to prevent runaway vehicles if malfunctions should occur in the accelerator control system, we must reject your suggestion that Standard No. 124 should be interpreted in such a way that it does not apply to electronically controlled diesel engines. I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions or would like some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosures";

ID: 86-2.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ernest Farmer -- Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Dept. of Education

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation Tennessee Department of Education Nashville, Tennessee 37219-5335

This responds to your February 19, 1986 letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) asking whether Federal motor vehicle safety standards prohibit commercial businesses from using fiberglass on the exterior of school buses. As explained below, the answer to your question is no.

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes NHTSA to issue minimum performance standards for school buses. Our safety standards do not specify the materials to be used for the exterior of school buses. However, the materials chosen by a manufacturer must be strong enough to enable the bus to meet the requirements of those standards. Among those requirements are the rollover protection ones of Standard No. 220, fuel system requirements of Standard No. 301, and strength requirements of Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength, for body panel joints on school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds. Manufacturers of new school buses using fiberglass for school bus exteriors must certify that their vehicles conform to the requirements of all applicable school bus safety standards.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

February 19, 1986

Ms. Deadra Holm U. S. Department of Transportation NHTSA 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Holm,

We have discovered the presence of fiber glass in the outer skin of the Van Conversions manufactured by the Collins Industries Inc. of Hutchinson, Kansas. While, admittedly, we see little if any, safety hazard associated with the practice, we do forsee the possibility of legal actions "down the road" if children are seriously injured and the presence of this material is exposed.

Our school bus specifications require compliance with the National Minimum School Bus Standards as well as all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards applicable to the manufacture, sale and operation of pupil transportation equipment. My question is: Does the use of fiberglass in the manufacture of Type II school buses conflict with any known FMVSS?

An early response will be appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Farmer Director of Pupil Transportation

ID: nht79-3.43

DATE: 10/15/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. Hunter for R. J. Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors Limited Car Division

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 17, 1979, regarding the requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, pertaining to the emergency release warning system for automatic belts.

Paragraph S4.5.3.3(b)(1) of the standard requires an audible and visible warning if the driver's automatic belt system is not in use, as determined by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened. On one of your automatic belt designs the latch mechanism consists of a pivoting bar which slips through a small stitched loop on the end of the belt webbing. You note that this latch mechanism can be fastened without the webbing being connected to the pivot bar, and that in such a case the warning system would not operate even though the belt is not in use. Therefore, you ask if you can install a switch in the automatic belt retractor to detect when insufficient webbing is extended from the retractor to engage with the latch on the door frame. You ask if such a system could be used as an alternative to the existing requirement or, if the standard could be amended to allow the alternative.

In answer to your question, a switch in the retractor of an automatic belt system would not satisfy the current warning system requirement if the system did not also include a switch in the emergency release latch mechanism. Further, the Agency does not believe that it is necessary to amend the standard to allow such an alternative. Although it may be true that the existing warning system could be defeated in a belt system such as you describe, the same is true with most warning system requirements. For example, if the standard provided the alternative you suggest, the automatic belt could be "tied-off" after sufficient webbing was withdrawn from the retractor and the warning system would be defeated. As you know, this method has been used to defeat the warning systems of many manual belts in the past. Therefore, we believe the existing requirement is sufficient to warn vehicle occupants that their automatic belt has been released and should be reconnected.

The "pivot-bar" release mechanism described in your letter appears to comply with the requirements of the standard. However, we believe that the bar should remain in the released position after the belt webbing has been removed so that the warning system will activate. In other words, we assume that the pivot bar does not re-latch automatically after being released but, rather, requires manual re-latching by the occupant.

Regarding your third question we have enclosed, for your information, Notice 14, Docket No. 1-18, which establishes the new requirements related to controls and displays.

ID: nht90-2.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/17/90

FROM: STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: DAVID R. MARTIN -- TOMOKA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: HANDWRITTEN LETTER DATED 01/01/90 (EST); FROM DAVID R. MARTIN TO NHTSA (OCC 4221)

TEXT: This responds to your letter to this agency's Public Affairs Office asking about the application of Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a van used by a correctional institution to transport inmates. Your letter has been referred t o me for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issued Standard No. 301 to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage in crashes. The standard applies to new vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if the vans in your letter were manufactured on or after Se ptember 1, 1976, the van manufacturer was required to certify their compliance with Standard No. 301. However, even if the vans did not comply with that standard, the Act does not place any responsibility for that noncompliance on the first purchasers a nd subsequent owners of the vans. Since some states do require that vehicles used for certain purposes comply with our standards, you may wish to address your question to appropriate State authorities in Tallahassee.

We regret we cannot provide the testing you seek. NHTSA obtains and tests new vehicles for compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, since the standard applies only to new vehicles, NHTSA does not conduct compliance tests on vehicles that have already be en sold to a consumer. The agency also cannot test every new type or model of vehicle, since it would be impracticable to do so.

For your information, Safety Standard No. 217 specifies emergency exit requirements for vans designed to carry 11 or more persons. However, the standard excludes vans purchased for transporting prison inmates. This exclusion resulted from a determinati on that the standard's requirements were incompatible with the necessity that buses used for transporting inmates be able to confine their occupants in transit. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 217 for your information.

You also asked whether we require roll bars on vehicles used to transport 12, 13 or 14 passengers. The answer is no. However, NHTSA does have a standard for roof crush protection (Standard No. 216) which requires the roof over the front seating area of cars to meet certain strength requirements. NHTSA has proposed to extend the standard to light trucks and buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: 8-29-02Johnsonltr

Mr. Frank Johnson
Executive Vice President
Nichirin Inc.
139 Copernicus Boulevard
Brantford, Ontario
CANADA N3P 1N4




Dear Mr. Johnson:

This responds to your letter, which we received on June 3, 2002, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 106, Brake Hoses. Specifically, you ask whether stainless steel braided brake hoses must meet the striping requirements of S5.2.1, Labeling. The answer is yes, unless the hoses are either sold as part of a motor vehicle or manufactured for use only in an assembly whose end fittings prevent the hoses from being installed in a twisted orientation.

S5.2.1 requires that "[e]ach hydraulic brake hose, except hose sold as part of a motor vehicle, shall have at least two clearly identifiable stripes of at least one-sixteenth of an inch in width, placed on opposite sides of the brake hose parallel to its longitudinal axis." 49 CFR 571.106. In addition, S5.2.1 provides that "hydraulic brake hose manufactured only for use in an assembly whose end fittings prevent its installation in a twisted orientation in either side of the vehicle, need not" meet the striping requirement. 49 CFR 571.106.

You indicate in your letter that Honda is proposing to use stainless steel braided hoses in a "new vehicle program" and you ask whether the outer mesh of these hoses needs to be striped. As indicated above, the requirements of S5.2.1 apply to all hydraulic brake hoses, not only those made of rubber. S5.2.1 does not exclude stainless steel braided brake hoses from the striping requirement. (See also May 12, 1994 letter to Mr. Jim Davis, Russell Performance Products, copy enclosed.) Accordingly, the stainless steel braided hose about which you inquire must be striped unless they meet either of S5.2.1's two exceptions.

If you supply brake hoses to Honda and the hoses are only installed on newly-manufacured vehicles, then the hoses would not need to be striped under S5.2.1. However, if Honda were to sell any of the brake hoses as replacement parts, and therefore they are not installed on a new motor vehicle, then they would need to be striped unless they are constructed in such a way or have unique features that would prevent their being installed in a twisted manner when they are put on the vehicle as replacement brake hoses.

Finally, we note that the agency has been petitioned by Parker Hannifin to update FMVSS No. 106. NHTSA granted the petition and is now evaluating the issues raised therein. If you are interested in reviewing a copy of this petition, you may access it at the following web address:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=46189&docketid=4367

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, you may contact Robert Knop of this office at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jaqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:106
d.9/6/02

ID: 2455y

Mr. David R. Martin
#113730 EA-118B
Tomoka Correctional Institution
3950 Tiger Bay Road
Daytona Beach, FL 32124

Dear Mr. Martin:

This responds to your letter to this agency's Public Affairs Office asking about the application of Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, to a van used by a correctional institution to transport inmates. Your letter has been referred to me for reply. I regret the delay in responding.

As you may know, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA issued Standard No. 301 to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from fuel spillage in crashes. The standard applies to new vans manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, that have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less.

Under the Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. Thus, if the vans in your letter were manufactured on or after September 1, 1976, the van manufacturer was required to certify their compliance with Standard No. 301. However, even if the vans did not comply with that standard, the Act does not place any responsibility for that noncompliance on the first purchasers and subsequent owners of the vans. Since some states do require that vehicles used for certain purposes comply with our standards, you may wish to address your question to appropriate State authorities in Tallahassee.

We regret we cannot provide the testing you seek. NHTSA obtains and tests new vehicles for compliance with FMVSS No. 301. However, since the standard applies only to new vehicles, NHTSA does not conduct compliance tests on vehicles that have already been sold to a consumer. The agency also cannot test every new type or model of vehicle, since it would be impracticable to do so.

For your information, Safety Standard No. 217 specifies emergency exit requirements for vans designed to carry 11 or more persons. However, the standard excludes vans purchased for transporting prison inmates. This exclusion resulted from a determination that the standard's requirements were incompatible with the necessity that buses used for transporting inmates be able to confine their occupants in transit. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 217 for your information.

You also asked whether we require roll bars on vehicles used to transport 12, 13 or 14 passengers. The answer is no. However, NHTSA does have a standard for roof crush protection (Standard No. 216) which requires the roof over the front seating area of cars to meet certain strength requirements. NHTSA has proposed to extend the standard to light trucks and buses (GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less). I have enclosed a copy of that proposal for your information.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure /ref:301#217 d:5/l7/90

ID: nht94-2.47

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: John Collins -- Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Trucking Associations (Alexandria, VA)

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/94 from John Womack to John Collins (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of the test procedure specified in paragraph S5.8.2, "Supply line retention", of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, "Air Brake Systems". The last sentence in this paragraph states:

"A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator o f the test rig set at 100 psi."

Our interpretation of test conditions specified in this sentence and Figure 1 (copy attached) is that:

1. The test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test.

2. The shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test.

3. The pressure in the test rig's 1000 cu in. reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test.

The basis for our interpretation are:

a. S5.8.2 does not say that the test rig is to be separated from the shop air supply for the test.

b. S5.8.2 does not say to turn the shut-off valve to the "off" position for the tests. The valve is considered to be normally "open" for tests since it is "open" during the tests for which the test rig was originally designed (brake apply a nd releasing timing tests in paragraphs S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS 121) and these paragraphs do not say to have the shut-off valve "open" the tests.

c. There would be no reason for S5.8.2 to specify setting the regulator valve at 100 psi if air was not flowing through the regulator valve. Air can only flow through the valve in this test when air is coming from the shop air supply and go ing out through the shut-off valve.

d. When a combination vehicle is moving, the vehicle's air compressor is operating to maintain the air system pressure within a specified range.

Whenever the trailer supply line pressure is less than the tractor reservoir pressure, air is flowing through the supply line.

We would very much appreciate an early answer to this request as The Maintenance Council of the American Trucking Associations is planning tractor- trailer air systems tests during the first week of May. The objective of these tests is to develop inform ation which will help manufacturers and owners build/modify equipment in such a way as to effectively live with the requirements of S5.8.2 as we interpret the.

Attachment

Figure 1. - Trailer Test Rig. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht94-6.27

DATE: April 18, 1994

FROM: John Collins -- Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, American Trucking Associations (Alexandria, VA)

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

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9/2/94 from John Womack to John Collins (A42; Std. 121)

TEXT:

This letter is a request for an interpretation of the test procedure specified in paragraph S5.8.2, "Supply line retention", of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 121, "Air Brake Systems". The last sentence in this paragraph states:

"A trailer shall meet the above supply line retention requirement with its brake system connected to the trailer test rig shown in Figure 1, with the reservoirs of the trailer and test rig initially pressurized to 100 psi, and the regulator of the test rig set at 100 psi."

Our interpretation of test conditions specified in this sentence and Figure 1 (copy attached) is that:

1. The test rig remains connected to the shop air, as shown in Figure 1, for the duration of the test.

2. The shut-off valve of the test rig remains open for the duration of the test.

3. The pressure in the test rig's 1000 cu in. reservoir is maintained at 100 psi for the duration of the test.

The basis for our interpretation are:

a. S5.8.2 does not say that the test rig is to be separated from the shop air supply for the test.

b. S5.8.2 does not say to turn the shut-off valve to the "off" position for the tests. The valve is considered to be normally "open" for tests since it is "open" during the tests for which the test rig was originally designed (brake apply and releasing timing tests in paragraphs S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 of FMVSS 121) and these paragraphs do not say to have the shut-off valve "open" the tests.

c. There would be no reason for S5.8.2 to specify setting the regulator valve at 100 psi if air was not flowing through the regulator valve. Air can only flow through the valve in this test when air is coming from the shop air supply and going out through the shut-off valve.

d. When a combination vehicle is moving, the vehicle's air compressor is operating to maintain the air system pressure within a specified range.

Whenever the trailer supply line pressure is less than the tractor reservoir pressure, air is flowing through the supply line.

We would very much appreciate an early answer to this request as The Maintenance Council of the American Trucking Associations is planning tractor- trailer air systems tests during the first week of May. The objective of these tests is to develop information which will help manufacturers and owners build/modify equipment in such a way as to effectively live with the requirements of S5.8.2 as we interpret the.

Attachment

Figure 1. - Trailer Test Rig. (Graphics omitted.)

ID: nht72-1.5

DATE: 04/05/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: U.S. Technical Research Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: The questions asked by your letter of March 18, 1972, have been compared with the applicable paragraphs of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 164 and the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J942.

1. The purpose of paragraphs 2.11 and 4.42b of J942 is to allow the testing of both manual and automatic systems seeing the same procedures. The (Illegible Word) of 4.42b attempts to equalise the usual cleaning cycle of each type of system. It is apparent that the manual system allowed for by 4.42b is one in which a single actuation, if held long enough, would put 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. The systems you described is not of this type, nor is it the automatic system. You must therefore comply with the intent of the test, which would be to operate your system for 8,000 washer cycles, as stated in paragraph 3.4. Each washer cycle is that which puts approximately 15 cc of fluid through the nozzle. Since your system is not the usual system implied in the standard, the three-record rule would not apply. Time limitation would be dictated by the "Mo./min" column of Table 1 of J942, i.e. two washer cycles per minute.

Therefore, the pump and central switch you described, along with the other parts of the systems, if they meet all other prescribed (Illegible Word), would comply with Federal Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 104.

2. An automatic pump cycling device would not be limited by the three-second rule. It would be requested to meet the "Mo./min" column of Table 1 of J942, 1.2., two washer cycles per minute.

3. Paragraph 3.1 does not specify the duration of water spray, member of water sprays, or start time of wiper action. No standard wiper blade, windshield, or mechanism is specified. These are the items which, in conjunction with the washer, must produce an effective wips/wash system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is concerned that the entire system provide good washing and wiping, and is not concerned with compliance of individual components.

4. "Repeatedly," as used in paragraphs 4.2.2a and b, means the repeated application of the control device (push button, usually) which is designed to cause the water to squirt out of the nozzles. Practically, this reproduces a driver's attempts to activate the system on a cold day, not knowing if it is frozen or plugged. Upon warming up, the systems must not have been damaged, and must still function after removal of the ice or plug. Without this safeguard, many systems would be rendered inoperative on the first cold day by an impatient driver.

5. To our knowledge, there is no reservoir size stated by Federal or State regulations.

Please ask for further information, if needed.

ID: 1985-01.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/11/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Herbert R. Apuzzo -- Laboratory Supervisor, American Safety Equipment Corporation, Corporate Quality Assurance & Reliability

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Herbert R. Apuzzo Laboratory Supervisor American Safety Equipment Corporation Corporate Quality Assurance & Reliability 11441 Bradley Avenue Pacomia, CA 91331

This responds to your letter of September 25, 1984, to Mr. William Smith which was forwarded to this office for reply. You asked several questions concerning the requirements of section 5.2(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, which are answered below.

Your first question concerns the conditioning requirements of Procedure D of ASTM D756-78, which is incorporated by reference in Standard No. 209. You pointed out that the agency' s compliance test procedure (document TP-209-01) calls for conditioning for 24 hours, while ASTM D756-78 calls for conditioning for not less than 40 hours. The conditioning requirement incorporated by reference in Standard No. 209 is the correct version and is the method which will be used by the agency. The version of the agency's compliance test procedure you cite was prepared before the June 30, 1983, amendments to Standard No. 208 which adopted ASTM D756-7B. The compliance test procedure will be revised to specify not less than 40 hours of conditioning.

Your second question concerned the requirement of Procedure D that part of the testing be done in a sealed container placed over water in a 176oF recirculating oven. The test calls for maintaining "a humid atmosphere" in the sealed container. You asked what percentage of humidity should be maintained.

You are correct that Procedure D does not specify the specific percentage of humidity. However, section 6.2, Test conditions, of ASTM D756-78 specifies that the tests should be conducted in the Standard Laboratory Atmosphere of 23 +- 2oC and 50 +- 5% relative humidity "unless otherwise specified in the test methods or in this practice." Since Procedure D does not specify a humidity level, the agency will use the humidity of 50 +- % relative humidity specified in section 6.2.

You also asked whether a recirculating chamber can be used to conduct the test. The test equipment specified in the standard is the equipment the agency will use in its compliance tests. Manufacturers are free to use other test equipment as long as they can make a good faith certification that their product complies with the requirements met in the standard.

Your final question concerns another difference between ASTM D756-78 and the compliance test procedure. As explained above, the version of the compliance test procedure you cite was prepared before the June 1983 amendments to the standard and will be updated to cite the requirements adopted in those amendments. You asked for a description of "dessicator" and "uncharged dessicator" referred to in ASTM D756-7B. A dessicator is a closed container that has a drying agent to absorb moisture. An "uncharged dessicator" is a dessicator that does not have a test specimen in it.

In addition, you asked whether you could use an environmental chamber rather than a dessicator. As discussed previously, the test procedures and equipment specified in the standard are the procedures and equipment which the agency will use in its compliance tests. Manufacturers are free to use other test equipment and procedures as long as they can make a good faith certification that their product complies with the requirements set in the standard.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel September 25, 1984

Mr. William E. Smith Office of Vehicle Safety National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, Southwest Washington, D.C. 20509

Mr. Smith,

American Safety Equipment Corporation, a major manufacturer of Seat Belt Restraint Systems, requires an interpretation of a long-standing but updated ASTM Standard identified in FMVSS-209, paragraph SS.2(b) "Hardware Temperature Resistance".

The Federal registry, under docket 48 FR 30138 (June 30, 1983) amended said paragraph to include updated ASTM D756-78, procedure D, which did not incorporate present standard industry practices.

In this regard, would you please review the following and inform American Safety Equipment of your interpretation.

1. Paragraph S5.2(b) calls for "Conditions prescribed in procedure D of ASTM D756-78" which in turn calls for conditioning at 73.4 +- 3.6 F and 50 +- 5% RH. for not less than 40h, per ASTM Methods D618, while TP-209-01 (page C-1) calls for conditioning for 24 hours. It is our understanding that 24 hours conditioning (as called out in TP-209-01) is "Standard" in the automotive industry, as opposed to the 40 hour conditioning period identified in ASTM D756.

Question: Will both methods satisfy the requirements of FMVSS-209?

2. ASTM D756-78, Procedure D calls for testing "OVER WATER" (at 176o F, in recirculating oven) in sealed container with small capillary "To maintain a humid atmosphere", but does not mention any specific percentage of relative humidity. In general practice, environmental chambers capable of relative humidity from near-zero to 100% are being used to maintain high humidity.

Question: What percentage of humidity can be expected with the "OVER WATER" method, and will recirculating chambers satisfy this requirement?

3. ASTM D756-78, calls for bringing specimens to room temperature in an "Uncharged dessicator which will require 10-30 minutes", then within 2h of exposure over water, expose the specimen for 24h in the oven at 176o F.

TP-209-01 states: "Within two humid of the humid exposure, place the specimens in a DRY HEAT OVEN which has been pre-conditioned to a temperature of 176 = 1.8o F for 24 hours, but does not mention the use of an uncharged dessicator for 10-30 minutes.

Question: Would you please provide us with a description of "Dessicator" and "Uncharged Dessicator" and a determination as to the acceptability of an environmental chamber set at 73.4 +-3.6oF and 50 +- 5% RH to bring specimens to room temperature and then to 176 +- 1.8oF dry heat.

We would appreciate your response (written) at your earliest possible convenience so that American Safety Equipment can maintain the most accurate test conditions possible.

Thank you,

Herbert R. Apuzzo Laboratory Supervisor American Safety Equipment Corporation Corporate Quality Assurance & Reliability 11441 Bradley Avenue Pacoima, CA 91331

HA:dm

cc: F. Neumann T. Israelson