ID: nht68-1.33

DATE: 10/23/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: National Association of Independent Insurers A.J.J. Enterprises Inc. NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ID: nht70-1.2

DATE: 10/06/70

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; G. C. Nield; NHTSA

TO: European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: (Illegible Text)

ID: 77-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 05/01/77 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Department of Education - New Jersey

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: 1984-3.28

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/14/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William E. Hedenberg -- President, Comfort Crew Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. William E. Hedenberg President Comfort Crew, Inc. 716 South Milwaukee Avenue Wheeling, Illinois 60090

This responds to your August 13, 1984, letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concerning the certification requirements for the air suspension systems you manufacture. According to your letter, your suspension systems are retrofitted to medium and light duty trucks by your dealers and by "special equipment" aftermarket manufacturers. In a subsequent telephone call with Ms. Deirdre Hom of my staff, you clarified your question by stating that your air suspension systems would be added to new vehicles prior to their first sale. Also, you stated that the installation of an air suspension system on a vehicle would not affect the vehicle's Gross Vehicle Weight Rating.

There is no requirement at present that air suspension systems be certified. The certification label is a manufacturer's representation that a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, and there are no standards that presently apply to air suspension systems. However, if your system is installed by a dealer on a new vehicle before its sale to its first purchaser for purposes other than resale, then under Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 467.7, Requirements For Persons Who Alter Certified Vehicles,the person installing the suspension system on the new vehicle would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. You should refer to 49 CFR Part 567.7 for the specific certification requirements for alterers.

As stated above, you as the manufacturer of the air suspension system would have no certification requirements. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification. Should a noncompliance be discovered as result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply. (12 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).

Regardless of whether there is a Federal motor vehicle safety standard which applies to your air suspension systems, you should be aware that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act imposes general responsibilities on manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment regarding safety defects. Under Section 151 et seq., manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Further, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, you should consider the possibility for liability in tort should your products prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to discuss this matter with your attorney and insurance company.

As you requested, we have previously returned to you the "Ride and Handling Evaluation" that you submitted with you letter.

Sincerely, Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

August 13, 1984

Ref: Air Suspension Certification

Dear Mr. Berndt:

In regard to the above, I have been referred to you by Ms. Dedra Hom of your office.

We have completed approximately two years of research and development, testing and market studies of an air suspension system for medium to light duty trucks. Although we are manufacturing the system, our dealers, and aftermarket manufactures such as R.V., ambulance, and special equipment firms will be retrofitting the removal of the O.E.M. steel spring suspension, and 100% bolt on retrofit of our system..

Enclosed is a Ride Handling Evaluation report, conducted by Bendix Automotive Proving Grounds, an independent testing firm. You will please note two areas of comparisons, Page 2, Item 4.3, HANDLING LANE CHANGE, and on Page 7, and Item 7.5, DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS. These test were without a rear stabilizer bar. We have now designed a rear bar, and have returned our vehicle to Bendix for comparisons. We cannot at this time provide any results, but through many demonstration rides by unbiased drivers, all opinions are that the vehicle roll on cornering is much less than the O.E.M. equipment. Bendix has also completed an accelerated durability of the design. Their report is in the compiling stage at this time. If you would, please return the RIDE and HANDLING REPORT at your earliest convenience.

We hav exhausted a considerable amount of investigating throughout N.H.T.S.A., D.O.T., F.M.V.S.S., and G.S.A. and cannot seem to locate any specifications which are written for suspensions. We are confident that you system will be beneficial to the consumer, and we do wish to comply to any Federal Standards. I you would please forward any requirments of suspensions as to certification, vehicle labeling, etc.

We request that our inquiry be expedited as our first units are scheduled to be shipped by September 7, 1984.

Thank you for your attention regarding this matter.

Sincerly yours, William E Hedenberg President WEH:sc enclosure

ID: 86-6.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/31/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Ms. Barbara J. Kelleher -- CRS Research

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey A. Miller to Frederick B. Locker (Std. 213)

TEXT:

Ms. Barbara J. Kelleher CRS Research Buffalo, NY 14226

This responds to your letter to Stephen Kratzke of my staff, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR S571.213). Specifically, you stated that a client planned to produce two child restraint models whose harness and crotch straps would be integral parts of a movable shield. You stated your belief that these straps were an integral part of the shield within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3.1(c) of Standard No. 213. Accordingly, you asked that this agency permit these straps to be attached during the Configuration II testing required by section S6.1.2.1.2. You stated that a similar request for harness attachment was "granted" to the Collier-Keyworth Company.

First, I would like to make clear that this agency does not grant requests by manufacturers to avoid following the compliance test procedures specified in Standard No. 213. He interpret the requirements of Standard No. 213 as they apply to particular factual situations. When those same factual situations arise again, our interpretation of the requirements is the same, regardless of which manufacturer is involved.

For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a July 3, 1985, letter this agency sent to Mr. Frederick Locker, addressing whether a proposed Collier-Keyworth child restraint could attach its belts during the Configuration II testing. We concluded that belts that are attached to and not easily removed from a movable shield are integral parts of/the shield, within the meaning of section S6.1.2.3(c). This conclusion means that these belts may be attached during the Configuration II testing.

Judging by the pictures enclosed with your letter, it appears that of the two child restraint models designed by your client also has belts that are attached to and not easily removed from the movable shield. If our belief is correct, those belts could be attached during the Configuration II testing.

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 346-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

October 1, 1986

Mr. Stephen R. Kratzke, NOA-32 U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

I have been retained by Century Products Inc, to request an interpretation of section S5.1.2.3.1.(c) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraint Systems (48 CFR 571.213) with regard to Century's Model 3000 and Model 400-XL child restraint systems. Since the harness and crotch strap belts of the Model 3000, and the harness belts and the crotch restraint mechanism of the Model 400 XL are integral parts of a movable surface as described in section S5.2.2.2, we request that the belts of these models be attached during Configuration II sled testing. As similar test for harness attachment during Configuration II testing was granted to the Collier-Keyworth Company on July 3, 1985 for a comparable restraint system with an integral harness/shield/crotch strap design. Photographs of Century's Model 400XL restrain systems are enclosed as figures 1 through 5.

The Model 3000 restraint system, figure 1, utilizes harness straps over each shoulder for upper torso restraint and a webbing and buckle crotch strap for lower torso and extremity restraint. Both are integrated with the movable shield in a continuous loop harness and cannot be easily removed. When the shield is lowered the harness straps over each shoulder of the child occupant and the crotch strap must be attached to the seat belt base between the child's legs. Although it is obvious that the crotch strap must be buckled (as a permanent part of the shield) we have also attached a warning label to the crotch strap webbing, figure 2, explaining the need to buckle the crotch strap to preclude any misinterpretation by the consumer.

The Model 400-XL, figure 3, has an integral harness design with straps passing over each shoulder of the child when the shield is lowered. Lower torso protection is provided by a combination shield/crotch restraint design that buckles into the seat base. The crotch restraint mechanism of the Model 400-XL and the shield that provides the lower torso and extremity restraint for the child are one piece and therefore cannot be separated. This shield cannot be properly positioned for a child unless the crotch portion is buckled into the seat base. In order to misuse this design a consumer would have to deliberately remove the harness straps which are threaded through the shield and secured with plastic tips, figure 4. The latching mechanism of the shield has a red label permanently attached to indicate when the shield is not properly latched, figure 5.

We would appreciate a reply to this request at your earliest convenience. If you require more information, please call me at (716) 674-48822.

Sincerely,

Barbara J. Kelleher

See 6/3/85 letter from Jeffrey A. Miller to Frederick B. Locker

ID: 86-1.27

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/10/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: M. Iwase -- Manager, Technical Administration Dept., Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. M. Iwase Manager, Technical Administration Dept. Koito Mfg. Co. Ltd. Shizuoka Works 500 Kitawaki Shimizu-shi, Shizuoka-ken JAPAN

This is in reply to your letter of August 30, 1985, to Jere Medlin, Office of Rulemaking, asking for an interpretation of the recent amendment to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 allowing motorcycles to be equipped with modulating headlamp systems.

In your first question, you asked for confirmation of your understanding of the modulation cycle and maximum power. We confirm that your interpretation is correct. Please note that the value of A on the modulation cycle of your diagram may be equal to or less than the value of D. However, the requirement relates to C/D rather than C/A, and it is the value of C/D that must be at least 0.17.

With reference to the electrical wiring diagram that you provided, you have asked whether the voltage drop maximum of 0.45 volt in S4.6.1(g) applies to condition (a) (when the modulator switch is "on") or condition (b) (when the modulator switch is "off"). The maximum voltage drop applies to both conditions (a) and (b), i.e., when the modulator is operating and when the headlamp is on. Paragraph S4.6.1(g) states "When tested in accordance with the test profile shown in Figure 9, the voltage drop across the modulator when the lamp is on at all test conditions ....shall not be greater than .45 volt." This not only includes the period of time when the modulator is operating, but also the period when the headlamp is on without the modulator. Paragraph S4.6.1(e) requires that both the upper and lower beams remain operable in the event of a modulator failure, and thus the agency views headlamp operation without modulator as one of the test conditions included in the term "test conditions" in S4.6.1(g). We would like to comment further that when the modulator is turned on, during the test profile of Figure 9, it should be activated when the headlamp is on, since most manufacturers of motorcycles wire their vehicles so that the headlamp is on when the ignition switch is on.

Your next question concerns the acceptability of three types of modulator switch systems which you have diagrammed. All your designs appear consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 108. The modulator must be capable of being switched out of the circuit if it fails, in which case upper and lower beams could be used im a steady-burning mode. This does not necessarily mean another switch, other than the Hi-low beam switch, however.

In response to your final question, you may write Herbert Thrower, Jr., President, Dotech Inc., P.O. Box 3322, Charlotte, N.C. 28210.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

SUBJECT: ACTION: Request for Interpretation of Motorcycle Modulating Headlamp Requirements (FMVSS No. 108) by Koito

FROM: Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking

TO: Jeffrey Miller Chief Counsel

Rulemaking received the attached request for an engineering interpretation of the intent of certain requirements for motorcycle headlamp modulators.

Herein is the engineering interpretation of the requirements in question. Please prepare the official response to Koito based on this information.

In response to question 1:

1. Yes, 0.21 < y < 0.30 sec., as suggested by koito, is correct.

2. Yes, x/y = 50 to 70%, as suggested by Koito, is correct.

3. The value of A may be equal to or less than the value of D. However, the requirement relates to C/D rather than C/A. It is the value of C/O that must be at least 0.17.

In response to question 2:

The intent of the requirement in S4.6.1 is to assure that less than 0.45 volts is lost as a result of the addition to a headlamp circuit for the purpose of modulating the headlamp. The 0.45 volts is for night operation condition of the headlamp (i.e. condition "b" in Koito's letter).

In response to question 3.

We do not approve designs, but offer the following comments on the intent of the rule. The modulator should be capable of being switched out of the circuit if it fails, in which case upper and lower beams could be used in a steady burning mode. This does not necessarily mean another switch, other than the Hi-low beam switch, however. All your designs appear to be consistent with the requirements of the standard, however some appear more desirable, based on number of switches, case of use, etc., than others.

In response to your request for the address of Dotech, a modulator manufacturer, the following information is furnished:

Mr. Herbert Thrower, Jr.. President Dotech Inc. P.O. Box 3322 306 Clanton Road Charlotte, N.C. 28210 Tel. No. (704) 523-6727

Attachment

ID: 7742-2

Mr. Paul Gould
Senior Engineer - Friction Materials
Lucas Heavy Duty Braking Systems
Grange Road
Cwmbran, Gwent
South Wales NP44 3XU
Great Britain

Dear Mr. Gould:

This responds to your letter asking about the dynamometer requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.121). You requested clarification of the term "average deceleration rate" and its tolerance, particularly with respect to the brake power test (S5.4.2). You stated that you view the specified deceleration rate as "only a target" in order to fade the linings, and believe that it is acceptable to conduct tests at five percent below the specified rate. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

Some background information on Federal motor vehicle safety laws and regulations may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq., Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self- certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards.

Manufacturers must have some independent basis for their certification that a product complies with all applicable safety standards. This does not necessarily mean that a manufacturer must conduct the specific tests set forth in an applicable standard. Certifications may be based on, among other things, engineering analyses, actual testing, and computer simulations. Whatever the basis for certification, however, the manufacturer must certify that the product complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications.

Standard No. 121's dynamometer test requirements are set forth in section S5.4. That section specifies that brake assemblies must meet the requirements of S5.4.1 (brake retardation force--relevant only to towed vehicles), S5.4.2 (brake power), and S5.4.3 (brake recovery), under the conditions of S6.2. The purpose of the dynamometer test requirements is to help ensure that brakes retain adequate stopping capacity during and after exposure to conditions caused by prolonged or severe use, such as long, downhill driving.

With respect to your question about the meaning of "average deceleration rate," that term is used in both S5.4.2 and S5.4.3. Section S5.4.2 specifies, for example, that each brake shall be capable of making 10 consecutive decelerations at an average rate of 9 f.p.s.p.s. from 50 mph to 15 mph, and shall be capable of decelerating to a stop from 20 mph at an average deceleration rate of 14 f.p.s.p.s. after the 10th deceleration. In S5.4, the meaning of average deceleration rate is explained as follows:

For purposes of the requirements of S5.4.2 and S5.4.3, an average deceleration rate is the change in velocity divided by the decleration time measured from the onset of deceleration.

We do not agree with your suggestion that the deceleration rates specified in Standard No. 121 are "only a target" in order to fade the linings. As indicated above, manufacturers must certify that each vehicle complies with a standard as it is written, i.e., that the vehicle will pass all applicable requirements if it is tested exactly according to the standard's test conditions and other specifications. Thus, if a vehicle was unable to pass Standard No. 121's test requirements at the specified deceleration rates, it would not comply with the standard, notwithstanding the fact that it might be able to pass the standard's requirements at slightly lower deceleration rates.

We recognize, however, that it may be difficult to achieve any exact deceleration rate in conducting a brake test. For this reason, the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance (OVSC) specifies tolerances in its Laboratory Test Procedures developed for use by contractors in conducting compliance tests for the agency. For the brake power and brake recovery tests (S5.4.2 and S5.4.3), the agency's current Laboratory Test Procedure specifies the following tolerances on deceleration rates: +0 to -1 ft/s/s, except for 12 ft/s/s: +0.5 ft/s/s.

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the agency's Laboratory Test Procedure for Standard No. 121's dynamometer tests. On the issue of tolerances, I call your attention to the following statement at the beginning of the Laboratory Test Procedure:

The OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures, prepared for use by independent laboratories under contract to conduct compliance tests for the OVSC, are not intended to limit the requirements of the applicable FMVSS(s). In some cases, the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures do not include all of the various FMVSS minimum performance requirements. Sometimes, recognizing applicable test tolerances, the Test Procedures specify test conditions which are less severe than the minimum requirements of the standards themselves. Therefore, compliance of a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is not necessarily guaranteed if the manufacturer limits certification tests to those described in the OVSC Laboratory Test Procedures.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:121 d:11/19/92

ID: nht74-1.45

DATE: 01/01/74 EST.

FROM: E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: M. L. Higgins

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 8 to Dr. James B. Gregory, Administrator, concerning an interpretation relative to the [Illegible Words].

[Illegible Paragraph].

ID: nht72-3.13

DATE: 04/03/72

FROM: Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Fabrica Pisana S.P.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 10, 1972, concerning marking of your glazing materials intended for the American market.

The marking you propose to use satisfied the requirements of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials.

ID: nht72-1.16

DATE: 05/31/72

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

TO: The General Tire & Rubber Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your letter of May 1, 1972, we would consider a tire with a cord carcass angle of 85 degrees to be within the definition of "radial ply tire" as that term is defined in Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109.