ID: nht80-1.16

DATE: 02/25/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BF Goodrich Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 29, 1979, letter asking about brake adjustments prior to testing for compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. In your letter, you ask that the agency permit up to three adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

By letter of interpretation and by preamble to our November 1974 Federal Register Notice (39 FR 39880), adjustments were permitted during the burnish procedures in S6.1.8 and S6.2.6 for the purpose of controlling brake temperature. According to agency information at the time of those interpretations, controlling brake temperature was the only reason that would require the use of brake adjustments during burnish. In a subsequent letter to the agency, you requested that we modify that position in light of your experience with disc brakes and their need for adjustment during burnish for dynamometer testing for reasons other than temperature control. The agency denied that request in April of 1979 while suggesting that the NHTSA would reconsider if more supporting data were supplied.

In response to the agency's request for more data, you have submitted another request for interpretation. To support this request, you have provided information in your letter and have also provided other information directly to our technical staff. As a result of this information, the agency agrees that adjustments during the burnish procedures may be necessary for reasons other than temperature control. Accordingly, the agency will permit adjustments during the burnish procedures for the sections cited above for any reason.

The standard presently is silent on the issue of how many brake adjustments may be made during burnish. As discussed with you and your staff we are considering limiting the number of adjustments to three during the burnish tests. However, no limitation is in effect at this time. The agency will undertake rulemaking shortly to limit the number of adjustments during burnish and encourages manufacturers to limit adjustments to three in the interim.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

October 29, 1979 FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, Department of Transportation

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter comments on and is in regard to your correspondence of April 27, 1979 to Mr. D.L. Haines; the Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter dated January 24, 1979 also to Mr. D.L. Haines; the BFGoodrich letter of January 15, 1979 to Mr. Tad Herlihy; and the BFGoodrich letter of November 8, 1978 to Mr. Joseph J. Levin, Jr.

BFGoodrich reviewed your interpretation of FMVSS 121, Paragraph S5.3, S5.4, and S6.1.8 and S6.2.2 regarding brake adjustment during burnish. In summary, you state that brake adjustments may be made during burnish, but only to control brake temperature.

In reference to that interpretation, BFGoodrich submits the following observations and comments.

1. The intent of our original inquiry, dated November 8, 1978, was to ensure that the BFGoodrich interpretation of FMVSS 121 with regard to adjustment during burnish was correct.

2. Mr. Levin's response of January 24, 1979, which postdated our letters of November 8, 1978 and January 15, 1979, was originally thought to be a reply to BFGoodrich correspondence and was interpreted as supporting our position that adjustment during the burnish sequence is not restricted.

3. Your letter of April 27, 1979 declined to support our position but suggested that NHTSA would consider data and information that would indicate that the NHTSA position on this matter might be too narrow.

4. Your letter of April 27, 1979 also stated that "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is unaware of a reason other than control of brake temperature which would justify adjustments during burnish." BFGoodrich establishes that reason for adjustment by means of the information presented in the following paragraphs.

A. A review of our Vehicle testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 (including sections recently deleted for trucks and trailers in response to the 9th Circuit remand) has shown that vehicles using the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake can meet all performance criteria without brake adjustment during the burnish sequence.

B. A review of BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake dynamometer testing in compliance with procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 has shown that the dynamometer tests can be completed and meet all performance criteria. However, during burnish, as a flat and fully mated lining/disk interface is established, a maximum of three brake adjustments is required to maintain burnish decelerations.

C. The burnish procedures detailed in FMVSS 121 appear to be tailored to the needs of drum brakes equipped with organic linings. The primary need is to cure the "green" organic lining in preparation to meeting the actual performance requirements of the standard.

D. The burnishing requirements for the BFGoodrich disk brake are significantly different due to the fact that its metallic lining material requires minimal conditioning. For example, the BFGoodrich disk brake lining can be conditioned after 100 dynamometer burnish stops (and many times with as few as 50) to successfully complete the performance requirements. Such an abbreviated burnish sequence requires no brake adjustments between any burnish stops.

In presenting the foregoing data, we feel we have established a reason for an interpretation which is supportive of our position that adjustment during burnish is acceptable. In our particular case, the reason and need is limited to the dynamometer burnish in which we require a maximum of three burnish adjustments in order to complete a full burnish sequence. Parenthetically, it should be noted that an abbreviated dynamometer burnish sequence of 100 stops can be accomplished with our disk brake without brake adjustment between burnish stops. In either case, the actual performance testing following the dynamometer burnish can be successfully completed.

Listed below is a summary of the BFGoodrich viewpoints on this matter:

* There is no clear basis for the no-adjustment-during-burnish interpretation in the wording of FMVSS 121 as applied to disk brakes.

* The above position is strengthened by the interpretive precedent. established in November of 1974, which allowed adjustment during burnish to control brake temperature (reference the Joseph J. Levin, Jr. letter of January 24, 1979).

* The burnish procedure is preceived as a preparation for testing and not a performance requirement in itself.

* Technical criteria used in establishing the burnish sequences appear to be based only on drum brake experience and requirements, and that criteria is not necessarily representative of the burnish requirements of other braking technologies such as the BFGoodrich Air Disk Brake.

* No degradation of performance requirements are suffered by allowing adjustment during burnish.

In light of the above and for the reasons noted earlier, BFGoodrich requests a reconsideration or modification to the previous interpretation which would allow up to three brake adjustments during the burnish for dynamometer testing.

If the Department still feels that there is insufficient reasoning to reconsider the current interpretation and additional discussion is required, please advise me as to a date that you will be available to review this issue.

Sincerely,

THE B F GOODRICH COMPANY -- Engineered Products Group;

Jack D. Rainbolt -- Chief Engineer, Air Disk Brakes, Transportation Division

cc: K. M. Ryan

ID: aiam5290

Dear Mr. Cysewski: This responds to your letter asking about th applicability of Federal requirements to two vehicles. I apologize for the delay in our response. According to your letter, one vehicle is a 13,600 pound cement silo that has tandem axles. The second vehicle is a 6,400 pound aggregate batch plant that has a single axle. The cement silo and batch plant are mounted on their own trailers, and are equipped with electric brakes. Each vehicle is pulled by a one ton truck with hydraulic brakes. You also stated that both vehicles are mobile but are designed to be towed for off-the-road set and positioning. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), issues Federal motor vehicle safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act). The Safety Act defines the term 'motor vehicle' as follows: 'any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.' (Section 102(3)) If a vehicle is a motor vehicle under the definition, then the vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, if a vehicle is not a motor vehicle under this definition, then the vehicle need not comply with the agency's safety standards because such a vehicle is outside the agency's scope of authority. Whether NHTSA considers a construction vehicle, or similar equipment, to be a motor vehicle depends on the use for which it is manufactured. It is the agency's position that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-highway use of the vehicle is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which the vehicle was manufactured. In instances where vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time, such vehicles are considered motor vehicles for purposes of the Safety Act, since the on-highway use is more than 'incidental.' Your letter does not provide sufficient information for us to determine the extent to which the two vehicles would use the public roads. Nor can we determine whether the on-highway use of the vehicles would be merely incidental and not the primary purpose for which they are manufactured. However, you should be able to determine whether the vehicles are considered motor vehicles based on the information set forth above. If the vehicles are considered motor vehicles under the Safety Act, they would be required to meet all safety standards applicable to trailers. Enclosed is an information sheet which identifies Federal statutes and NHTSA standards and regulations affecting motor vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel Enclosure;

ID: aiam2469

Subject: Tread Label Format: *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* On December 16, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Calvi Schaffner of B.F. Goodrich Co. (216 379-3470) concerning Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, 49 CFR S 575.104. That figure depicts the format of the tread label required by the rule.; Mr. Schaffner referred to Figure 2 as it appears in Notice 21 (41 F 54205, December 13, 1976). I explained that, because Notice 21 is a notice of proposed rulemaking rather than final rulemaking, the inclusion of the warnings in the traction and temperature grades is not yet certain. I further explained, however, that (i) in all other respects, the depiction of Figure 2 in that notice was correct, (ii) the appearance of Figure 2 was incorrect in both Notices 17 and 18, due to printing errors at the Federal Register, and (iii) this point would be clarified in a final rulemaking notice.; Mark Schwimmer, Attorney-Advisor

ID: aiam2468

Subject: Tread Label Format: *Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards* On December 16, 1976, I received a telephone call from Mr. Calvi Schaffner of B.F. Goodrich Co. (216 379-3470) concerning Figure 2 of the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards, 49 CFR S 575.104. That figure depicts the format of the tread label required by the rule.; Mr. Schaffner referred to Figure 2 as it appears in Notice 21 (41 F 54205, December 13, 1976). I explained that, because Notice 21 is a notice of proposed rulemaking rather than final rulemaking, the inclusion of the warnings in the traction and temperature grades is not yet certain. I further explained, however, that (i) in all other respects, the depiction of Figure 2 in that notice was correct, (ii) the appearance of Figure 2 was incorrect in both Notices 17 and 18, due to printing errors at the Federal Register, and (iii) this point would be clarified in a final rulemaking notice.; Mark Schwimmer, Attorney-Advisor

ID: 11246-2DRN

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

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect. You asked how the requirement in S3.1.4 concerning display of shift lever positions would apply to the Porsche Tiptronic transmission in the event of a serious fault in the transmission. As explained below, the vehicle would not need to meet S3.1.4 when it detects a serious fault in the transmission.

In your letter and in a telephone conversation with Dorothy Nakama of my staff, you explained that the Tiptronic transmission has a default "limp-home" mode which is enabled whenever a serious fault is detected in the transmission control unit. In this mode, the vehicle automatically goes into fourth gear drive. This allows the driver to get the car to a dealership where the fault can be repaired. If the driver attempts to move the shift lever, the vehicle's transmission would not go out of fourth gear. However, the driver would be able to put the vehicle into "park." You stated that Porsche plans to indicate to the driver that the transmission has entered the limp- home mode by flashing alternately the gear position indicator and the gear number indicator.

S3.1.4.1 of Standard No. 102 states that:

[I]f the transmission shift lever sequence includes a park position, identification of shift lever positions, ... shall be displayed in view of the driver whenever any of the following conditions exist:

(a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be shifted.

(b) The transmission is not in park.

The question you raise is similar to one we addressed in a July 29, 1993 interpretation to Mazda (copy enclosed). In both situations, NHTSA is asked to address whether, in an abnormal functioning of the vehicle, the vehicle must continue to meet Standard No. 102. In the letter to Mazda, we stated that Standard No. 102 presumes a functioning vehicle with a functioning gear shift lever sequence. One of the purposes of Standard No. 102 is to reduce the likelihood of shifting errors. In the letter to Mazda, NHTSA went on to state:

In the event of a power failure in a vehicle incorporating electronic transmission gear shift sequence displays, the vehicle would not be capable of being driven, or of having its gears shifted. Therefore, since the standard did not contemplate driving or shifting gears in the event of a power failure, the standard was not intended to regulate the transmission shift display in the event of an electrical or other power failure, when the vehicle is taken out of the "park" position in order to be towed.

Similarly, in the event of a fault in Porsche's Tiptronic transmission, as you indicated to Ms. Nakama, the vehicle would not be capable of being driven above the fourth gear, or of having its gears shifted. Since Standard No. 102 presumes a normally functioning vehicle, in the event of a fault in the Tiptronic transmission, the vehicle need not meet Standard No. 102's requirement that the "identification of shift lever positions, including the positions in relation to each other and the position selected, shall be in view of the driver."

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any further information, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:102 d:3/13/96

ID: 11561MLV

Mr. Juergen Babirad
ORSC Consultant
Rehabilitation Technology Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 540
Kinderhook, NY 12106h

Dear Mr. Babirad:

This responds to your letter of February 5, 1996, requesting "a waiver of FMVSS 208 in regards to the air bag deployment system." You explained that you have

been asked to advise a consumer with regards to installing an aftermarket six way power seat base into his 1995 Dodge Ram Van. This power seat base installation mounts in an area which requires the relocation of one of the air bag deployment sending units found under the driver's seat. The instructions provided by the OEM specifically prohibit relocation of this unit.

You further explained that the van owner "is permanently disabled and requires a wheelchair for all of his mobility." Because of the special design of this seat base, he is able to transfer into the seat.

In summary, our answer is that the vehicle may be modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on a vehicle to accommodate a condition such as you describe. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by noting that repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when

making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since the situation you describe is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat, and presumably moving the seat belts for the seat, could affect compliance with four safety standards: Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter provides information that the modification to the vehicle cannot be done in a way that would not violate the make inoperative prohibition.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on the vehicle to accommodate the condition you describe.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. In addition, you should consult with the manufacturer to determine the effect of moving the air bag deployment sending unit. The modification may cause the air bag to deploy, and the manufacturer should be able to provide information on how the modification can be safely performed. Finally, if the vehicle is sold, we encourage the owner to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any other questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:3/21/96

ID: aiam4415

Dear Mr. Miller: This responds to your September 25, 1987, letter to Mr. Val Radovich o NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards and your October 19, 1987 letter to my office concerning paragraph S4.2.1 of Safety Standard No. 302, *Flammability of Interior Materials*.; You ask whether the thread that is used in the manufacture of a sea cushion is tested as part of the component. The answer is yes. In a March 10, 1978 interpretation of Standard No. 302, NHTSA recognized that stitching that does not adhere at every point of contact should be tested separately under S4.2.1. However, the agency also determined that, from the standpoint of practicality, the stitching cannot be tested separately in the prescribed manner. NHTSA thus concluded that stitching will be tested as part of the material itself.; Please contact us if you have further questions. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam4433

"Dear Mr. Pierson: This responds to your letter in which you mad several observations about dynamic testing requirements generally in our safety standards. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain those requirements for you. You began by observing that this agency has been moving to replace static testing requirements (tests in which individual vehicle components are subjected to specified levels of slowly applied force in a laboratory test) with dynamic testing requirements (e.g., tests in which a vehicle is crashed into a barrier and anthropomorphic test dummies are used to measure the protection provided by the vehicle to occupants in a crash). You then suggested that there were several potential difficulties or misinterpretations that could arise with dynamic testing. First, you asked which of the several standardized human physical dimensions should be used to determine if a vehicle complies with our safety standards that refer to a specified percentile child or adult. For instance, section S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) requires the lap belt portion of a seat belt assembly to adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 50th percentile 6 year old child to a 95th percentile adult male, while the shoulder belt portion of a seat belt assembly must adjust to fit persons whose dimensions range from a 5th percentile adult female to a 95th percentile adult male. When our regulations refer to a specific size for a vehicle occupant, the regulations also clearly specify the dimensions and weights of the vehicle occupants to which we are referring. Section S7.1.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth the critical weights and dimensions of all vehicle occupants referred to in that standard. The critical weights and physical dimensions for all of the anthropomorphic test dummies used to measure compliance with our safety standards are set forth in 49 CFR Part 572, Anthropomorphic Test Dummies. Second, you noted that testing facilities will conduct crash testing, but will not certify those results. This practice on the part of the testing facilities is consistent with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Section 114 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1403) explicitly requires every manufacturer to certify that each of its vehicles or items of equipment conforms to all applicable safety standards. Hence, regardless of how a testing facility presents test results to a manufacturer, it is the manufacturer of the product, not the testing facility, that is statutorily responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. Third, you stated that 'laws requiring certification usually do not require the actual crash test to be performed.' You are correct to the extent that you are suggesting that the Safety Act does not require manufacturers to conduct any testing before certifying that its product complies with all applicable safety standards. The Safety Act requires only that the manufacturer exercise due care in certifying its products compliance with the safety standards. It is up to the individual manufacturer in the first instance what data, test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that each of its products comply with all applicable safety standards. However, for purposes of enforcing the safety standards, this agency conducts spot checks of products after they have been certified by the manufacturer. NHTSA purchases the products and tests them according to the procedures specified in the applicable standard. If the standard specifies a crash test, NHTSA conducts the crash test according to the specified procedures. Fourth, you asked how you could obtain a copy of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Recommended Practice J833. This and all other SAE materials can be obtained by writing to: Customer Service Department, Publications Group, SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001. The SAE's Customer Service Department can also be contacted by telephone at (402) 776-4970. Fifth and finally, you suggested that the formula used to calculate the head injury criterion (HIC), set forth in sections S6.1.2 and S6.2.2 of Standard No. 208, is relatively complex, so the HIC could be miscalculated. It is true that any mathematical calculation can be performed incorrectly. Nevertheless, the formula for calculating the HIC yields only one correct result for any set of variables. This agency has not experienced any difficulties in calculating the proper HIC from any test results, and is not aware of any difficulties that have been encountered by any manufacturers in making such calculations. Hence, we do not believe there are any problems associated with the HIC formula. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions or need additional information in this area, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam1907

Dear Mr. Hirai: This responds to your April 16, 1975, question whether the tes procedure of S7, 7, 1 of Standard No. 105-75, *Hydraulic brake system*, permits reapplication of the parking brake if the vehicle fails to hold on the required grade after the first application of a force or series of forces. You also ask whether a brake warning indicator which signals a shortlived loss of pressure during a spike stop brake application would conform to S5.3.1(a) (1).; Section S7.7.1 directs (in part) application of the parking brake wit a force or series if forces, release of the service brake which has been holding the vehicle on the required grade, and indicates that in release of the service brake, 'it may be necessary to reapply *it*, if the vehicle moves slightly, to take up the parking brake system slack' (emphasis added).; The word 'it' refers to the service brake system, and not the parkin brake system. This sentence permits application of the service brake only, which has the effect of taking up parking brake system slack due to rotation of the brake shoes and drum prior to bottoming against the anchor pin. This service brake application is intended to provide the best opportunity for a static test of the parking brake.; You state that a differential pressure can occur within the Mazd master cylinder during a spike stop brake application because the piston travels beyond the outlet port to the rear wheel brake lines. This pressure differential causes momentary activation of the brake warning indicator lamp.; The NHTSA would consider in this case that, as a technicality momentary failure of the rear wheel subsystem has occurred because continued braking pressure cannot be applied to the rear wheels. you point out that the system corrects immediately and the signal lamp is extinguished.; From your description of the Mazda system, NHTSA concludes that th activation of the signal lamp conforms to the requirements of S5.3.1(a) (1) as long as it is designed to extinguish as soon as the system corrects and continued brake force could be applied to the read wheels.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Assistant Chief Counsel

ID: nht72-2.27

DATE: 06/05/72

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

TO: State of Louisiana

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 26 to Mr. Schneider, referencing your conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office on Federal motor vehicle safety standards appliable to mobile homes.

In answer to your questions:

(1) Mobile homes (house trailers) are required to comply with the same Federal Safety Standards applicable to other types of trailers.

(2) Lights are not required to be permanently installed. The use of a temporary lighting harness, removable when the home was completed its trip from factory to point of purchase, is acceptable.

(3) There are no Federal safety standards for hydraulic surge brakes on trailers.