ID: 09-002735 Cong Goodlatte 2

ID: nht81-2.23

DATE: 05/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Gateway Industries, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAY 12 1981

NOA-30

Mr. John S. Miskowicz Gateway Industries, Inc. 17512 Carriage Way Drive Hazel Crest, Illinois 60429

Dear Mr. Miskowicz:

This responds to your letter of March 2, 1981, to Vladislav Radovich concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Your letter was forwarded to this office for reply.

You asked whether a child restraint belt buckle must meet the buckle force release requirements when tested in an unloaded condition. As explained below, the answer is no. The buckle force requirements only apply to buckles tested in a loaded condition. In addition, you asked whether section 4.3(a) and 4.3(b) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, are the only requirements of that standard which apply to buckles in child restraint systems. The answer is yes.

Section 5.4.3.5 of Standard No. 213 provides that each child restraint belt buckle, when tested in accordance with S6.2, must not release when a force of not more than 12 pounds is applied before the dynamic sled specified in S6.1 is conducted. The buckle must release when a force of 20 pounds is applied after the dynamic sled test. Section 6.2 provides that in conducting the belt buckle release force test, the appropriate test dummy is placed in the restraint and either a pull force of 20 pounds is applied, in the case of 6 month-old-test dummy, or a 45 pound pull force is applied, in the case of the three-year-old test dummy. Thus, the buckle is not tested in an unloaded state.

Section 5.4.2 of the standard provides that each belt buckle has to conform to the "requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209." No other provisions of Standard No. 209 apply to belt buckles used in child restraints.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 2, 1981

Office of Vehicle Safety Standards National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington D.C. 20590

Attention: Mr. Vladislav Radovich

Dear Mr. Radovich:

Enclosed please find three prototype samples of our child seat buckle we would like to market. Gateway Industries is a major supplier of seat belts to General Motors and Chrysler and we hope to expand our product line by offering this item to child seat manufacturers.

We feel that our buckle meets all of the specifications of Standard 213, however, there is one area we wish you would clarify in regard to the 12 lb. to 20 lb. release force. (You may recall my phone call to you in the first week of January.)

Our buckle meets the letter of the spec as written. That is, as specified in S5.4.3.5 we meet S6.2 before and after the test specified in S6.1. Standard 213 makes no mention of how to test the buckle in an unloaded state. Does the 12 to 20 lbs. apply to the unloaded condition?

The three enclosed buckles do meet the 12 lb. minimum in the unloaded state, however, we are marginal and I doubt we can consistently obtain this on a large volume product basis. I theorize that on cccasion we will have release efforts of 10 lbs. in the unloaded state. Would this mean that we do not comply with Standard 213? With the slightest load applied to the buckle (approximately 5 lbs.), the release efforts increase and we again are in compliance. Also, in the "Summary of Final Rule Provisions", No. 5 states the requirements in 209 apply and S5.4.2 states S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of 209 apply. Does this mean that only the requirements of S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) apply or do all the requirements of 209 apply?

We thank you for your time in reviewing this matter and would appreciate your written response. Please feel free to include any comments you may have concerning our product.

I would like to add that our buckle has been dynamically tested to Standard 213 on a Strolee Seat System at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and proven successful. We can guarantee a tensile load of 750 lbs.

Truly yours,

GATEWAY INDUSTRIES, INC.

John S. Miskowicz Manager, Design Engineering

ID: nht88-4.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/09/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: J. E. CARR -- PRODUCT SAFETY & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-29-88, INTERPRETATION OF TERMS FOR FMVSS 124, OCC-1999

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry of April 29, 1988, asking this agency for an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems, as it applies to the components of a diesel truck engine and accelerator control components described in your l etter. I apologize for the delay in this response.

With your letter, you provided diagrams of three different accelerator control systems and fuel metering devices for a diesel engine. The first system (Type I in your letter) was a purely mechanical system. In this system, the linkage from the accelera tor pedal connects to a mechanical governor. This governor is a device that responds to pedal displacement, and causes a rack to move, thereby controlling the flow of fuel from fuel injector pumps into the engine cylinders. The second and third systems described in your letter operate through an electrical-mechanical sequence. In the second system (Type II in your letter), mechanical linkage from the accelerator pedal connects to an electronic pedal position sensor. When the vehicle operator puts pre ssure on the accelerator pedal, this sensor converts that movement into an electrical signal. The electrical impulse travels through a wire to an engine control module (ECM). The ECM interprets pedal position and engine speed from the sensor impulse, an d determines how much fuel must go to the engine cylinders either to maintain or reduce speed in consequence of pedal movement. In turn, the ECM sends a signal to a motor which moves a fuel rack to control the flow of fuel from the injector pumps into t he engine cylinders. In the system you call Type III, the ECM sends a signal directly to individual fuel injector pumps without the intervention of a rack. Otherwise, Type II and III are the same.

On October 28, 1988, at the agency's invitation, you met with us to further explain the background information for this request and why Caterpillar believes that particular components were included in either the accelerator control system or the fuel met ering device. During the

course of that meeting, you agreed with us that Caterpillar's principal concern was not whether any particular component was part of the accelerator control system or the fuel metering device. Instead, you were concerned with the requirement that the th rottle "shall return to idle" under specified conditions. You explained that your ECM is designed to shut off the engine, rather than return the throttle to idle, during many failure modes. We conclude that the requirement that the throttle "return to i dle" is satisfied by a system that shuts off the engine in the specified circumstances.

As S2 of Standard 124 makes clear, the purpose of the standard is to prevent runaway vehicles when certain malfunctions occur in the accelerator control system. If such malfunctions do occur, the standard ensures that the engine will not continue at a hi gh speed, but will return to idle, so that the driver can safely brake the vehicle and get it off the road. In both the Type II and III systems referred to in your letter, the agency understands that a failure in the ECM circuitry, or a failure of the c omponents that respond to the ECM, will either return the throttle to idle or shut down the engine. Either of these results would serve the purpose of Standard 124. Therefore, we interpret the phrase "return to idle" to be satisfied by returning to idl e or going beyond that throttle position to shut off the engine. Accordingly, based on the information you have provided, it appears that your Type II and III systems would comply with Standard 124 regardless of whether the ECM and other components are considered part of the acclerator control system or the fuel metering device.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 3194o

Mr. J. E. Carr
Product Safety & Environmental Control
Caterpillar Inc.
Peoria, IL 61629

Dear Mr. Carr:

This letter responds to your inquiry of April 29, 1988, asking this agency for an interpretation of Standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems, as it applies to the components of a diesel truck engine and accelerator control components described in your letter. I apologize for the delay in this response.

With your letter, you provided diagrams of three different accelerator control systems and fuel metering devices for a diesel engine. The first system (Type I in your letter) was a purely mechanical system. In this system, the linkage from the accelerator pedal connects to a mechanical governor. This governor is a device that responds to pedal displacement, and causes a rack to move, thereby controlling the flow of fuel from fuel injector pumps into the engine cylinders. The second and third systems described in your letter operate through an electrical-mechanical sequence. In the second system (Type II in your letter), mechanical linkage from the accelerator pedal connects to an electronic pedal position sensor. When the vehicle operator puts pressure on the accelerator pedal, this sensor converts that movement into an electrical signal. The electrical impulse travels through a wire to an engine control module (ECM). The ECM interprets pedal position and engine speed from the sensor impulse, and determines how much fuel must go to the engine cylinders either to maintain or reduce speed in consequence of pedal movement. In turn, the ECM sends a signal to a motor which moves a fuel rack to control the flow of fuel from the injector pumps into the engine cylinders. In the system you call Type III, the ECM sends a signal directly to individual fuel injector pumps without the intervention of a rack. Otherwise, Type II and III are the same.

On October 28, 1988, at the agency's invitation, you met with us to further explain the background information for this request and why Caterpillar believes that particular components were included in either the accelerator control system or the fuel metering device. During the course of that meeting, you agreed with us that Caterpillar's principal concern was not whether any particular component was part of the accelerator control system or the fuel metering device. Instead, you were concerned with the requirement that the throttle "shall return to idle" under specified conditions. You explained that your ECM is designed to shut off the engine, rather than return the throttle to idle, during many failure modes. We conclude that the requirement that the throttle "return to idle" is satisfied by a system that shuts off the engine in the specified circumstances.

As S2 of Standard 124 makes clear, the purpose of the standard is to prevent runaway vehicles when certain malfunctions occur in the accelerator control system. If such malfunctions do occur, the standard ensures that the engine will not continue at a high speed, but will return to idle, so that the driver can safely brake the vehicle and get it off the road. In both the Type II and III systems referred to in your letter, the agency understands that a failure in the ECM circuitry, or a failure of the components that respond to the ECM, will either return the throttle to idle or shut down the engine. Either of these results would serve the purpose of Standard 124. Therefore, we interpret the phrase "return to idle" to be satisfied by returning to idle or going beyond that throttle position to shut off the engine. Accordingly, based on the information you have provided, it appears that your Type II and III systems would comply with Standard 124 regardless of whether the ECM and other components are considered part of the acclerator control system or the fuel metering device.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please call Joan F. Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

/ref:124 d:ll/9/88

ID: aiam0401

Dear Mr. Nakajima: Thank you for your letter of May 20, 1971, to Administrator Douglas W Toms, requesting an interpretation of paragraph S5.2(h) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209, and particularly of the sentence containing the phrase ...the retractor and webbing shall be suspended vertically...'; Of the two interpretations you submitted, your interpretation 2 i correct. The retractor-webbing combination is suspended vertically--there is no restriction on the attitude of the retractor with respect to the webbing. Thus, the retractor may be suspended in the position it will be mounted in the vehicle relative to the webbing when the webbing is in use.; Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Lawrence R. Schneider, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht94-4.36

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: September 26, 1994

FROM: Frank Lautenberg -- U.S. Senator

TO: Susan Slye -- Congressional Affairs, Federal Highway Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/28/94 FROM PHILIP R. RECHT TO FRANK LAUTENBERG (A42; REDBOOK 2; STD. 108)

TEXT: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from Dr. Mark Bauman concerning an automobile courtesy signal.

Please review the issues raised by Dr. Bauman and advise me on your findings in the matter. Please direct your response to Andrea Edwards at my Barrington office.

Thank you for your assistance in this case.

538 Justice Drive

Marlton, NJ 08053-5345

August 31, 1994

The Honorable Senator Frank Lautenberg 208 White Horse Pike Barrington, NJ 08007

Dear Senator Lautenberg,

I had the pleasure of speaking with your very able assistant, Ms. Andrea Edwards, last Friday regarding the letter which was forwarded in response to my assistance on our Automobile Courtesy Signal. Enclosed please find a copy of our schematic/installat ion instructions for the signal (we do have a working prototype of the signal). This, in addition to the material which I have sent you earlier this year, should hopefully be sufficient for initial review by the appropriate federal agency.

Thank you and your staff very much for your assistance in this matter. I look forward to a favorable response.

Sincerely,

Dr. Mark L. Bauman

AUTOMOBILE COURTESY SIGNAL INSTALLATION

(TEXT AND GRAPHICS OMITTED) 538 Justice Drive

Marlton, NJ 08053-5345

August 18, 1994

The Honorable Senator Frank Lautenberg 208 White Horse Pike Barrington, NJ 08007

Dear Senator Lautenberg,

I am in receipt of your letter of August 5 with the enclosed response from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. I am somewhat confused about some of the comments made by Mr. Hart, the acting Administrator.

First, he indicates that his agency is not authorized to approve or endorse specific devices and that each manufacturer must certify that its equipment meets applicable safety standards issued by that agency. If there are standards, could we attempt to "test" our signal based upon these standards with information that we already have? If there is such a "self-certification" process, do we have to already be a manufacturer in order to see if our signal will be certified as safe? That would be cost-pro hibitive at this point unless we could be given some way to test our signal based upon our working prototype and other pertinent data.

Secondly, Mr. Hart states that there are many suggestions for auxiliary signal devices but states further that there is no objective or scientific evidence that these devices will result in a net safety improvement. I am willing, as a doctor trained in objectivity, to concede that objective data is important in establishing a set of conditions. However, if one observed improvements in medicine, science, etc. throughout history it would be apparent that there are many situations that are simply obvious !! While I would also concede that we don't necessarily have the most perfect solution to this problem, there is no doubt that something should be done to cut down on intersection accidents or potential accidents and we feel that our signal at least has as valid a reason for existence as any other. There are many such instances for this need every day; the conglomeration of statistics should be able to confirm, while at least not denying, such evidence.

Mr. Hart eventually indicates that such signal devices could confuse other motorists rather than assisting them and that our device may not be any better than any others. Would it not be beneficial to be able to test such a device objectively or at leas t observe it rather than make such an assumption without observation?

I sent a letter to Vice President Gore last fall about such similar matters because he reportedly believes that there is too much bureaucracy in our government. He eventually replied, agreeing with me. How can this nation advance if there are such rest rictive regulations everywhere?

If you have any suggestions as to how I can proceed please be so kind as to inform me. You are, after all, the Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee!!

Thank you and your staff very much for your assistance in this matter.

Dr. Mark L. Bauman

ID: nht71-5.44

DATE: 09/22/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 16 and September 1971, regarding the computation of the severity index under Standard No. 208. I apologize for our delay in replying.

Your question is whether the severity index for an acceleration time history with two(Illegible Word), one caused by initial impact and the other caused by rebound, is computed on the basis of both peaks. Our reply is that both peaks must be used, even though the accelerations may be in opposite directions and separated by a measurable interval. The severity index computation is based on the entire event from onset of acceleration until the end of motion.

SINCERELY

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

September 14, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Our letter to you dated June 16, 1971.

On June 16, 1971, I wrote a letter to you requesting clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required in the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208.

To date, I have not received your reply.

As we have developed a passive restraint system to meet Standard 208, your clarification is quite necessary for the evaluation of our own system.

I would very much appreciate your reply as soon as possible.

K. Nakajima Director/General Manager

attachment

June 16, 1971

Mr. Douglas W. Toms, Admin. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

This is to request clarification of obtaining the Severity Index which is required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 -- Occupant Crash Protection.

Figure 1 (attached) is an example of head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in a front passenger seat which were recorded during a 30 mph barrier crash test for the evaluation purpose of passive restraint systems. These time histories indicate two acceleration peaks. The first peak occurs when the device in a passenger seat is restrained at the time of impact to the barrier by a passive restraint system which is installed in the front of the device. About 0.1 seconds after the first impact, the second peak follows when the device rebounds to strike the front seat back.

The Severity Index is calculated at 840 for the first impact to the front restraint system and calculated at 343 for the second impact to the front seat back. Therefore, the Severity Index of these two combined impacts is 1183.

Several questions on obtaining the Severity Index have arisen from the two impacts. We interpret these two

P2 impacts to be independent phenomena from each other because of the following reasons:

a. The impact areas on the vehicle's interior are different between the first and second impact.

b. The directions of the acceleration of the device are opposite, and the impact areas of the device are different. The first impact is to the front of the head, and the second impact is to the rear of the head.

c. A zero acceleration period is observed between the first impact and the second impact.

d. The time interval of these two peaks is about 0.1 seconds which seems to be enough time for the human brain to recover from the effect of the first impact.

Therefore, we believe that the evaluation of the Severity Index on the acceleration time histories should be done separately and should not be added together. In other words, the restraint system, the performance of which is shown in Figure 1, meets the requirement of Section 6.2. Is our interpretation correct?

Also, please advise us of the minimum time interval of these two impacts or the other bases of judgement which can be evaluated separately.

Your consideration is greatly appreciated.

K. Nakajima General Manager

Attachment

The first head impact to a passive restraint system. S.I. = 840

The second head impact to the front seat back.

S.I. = 343

Longitudinal accel.

Transverse accel.

Vertical accel.

Figure 1. Head acceleration time histories of an anthropomorphic test device in the front passenger seat at 30 mph barrier impact.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-5.48

DATE: June 23, 1992

FROM: R. Marie McFadden -- Cable Car Concept, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/20/92 from Paul J. Rice to R. Marie McFadden (A39; Std. 207; Std. 208)

TEXT:

We are a manufacturer of rubber tired trolleys, Road-Trains and Trolley-Trams. These vehicles can be used on the highway and are motorized, licensed vehicles. I have enclosed some spec sheets to give you an idea of what we build.

We would like a letter of interpretation on the following:

1 - Our small unit has a GVW of 12,300, we understand that we need seat belts for the driver only, this small unit is an eighteen passenger. Our largest is a thirty-two passenger unit with a GVW of 17,000 lbs.

2 - As you can see on our Tram specs we do have oak seats, is there a ruling on this at all.

3 - We have one seat on some of our vehicles that we refer to as a jump seat it is located in front of the entrance door, this seats two people and faces the driver. Would the same ruling apply to this seat as for the other passenger seats.

We have been manufacturing Trolleys for over twenty years, and are aware that new regulations came into effect Sept 1, 1991. We also have a copy of Federal Regulation #208. We would appreciate if you could interpretate the ruling before this date and after.

We appreciate your time, and await your reply.

Attachment

Brochure describes the Mini Trolly manufactured by Cable Car Concepts, Inc. (Text omitted)

ID: aiam3222

Dear Mr. Bertolini: This is in reply to your letter of February 22, 1980, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.; You have referenced our letter of May 5, 1977, to Mr. Dennis Moore o Dry Launch. That letter interpreted S4.3.1.1.1 with respect to a rear clearance lamp which indicated overall width though it was not located on the rear of the trailer. In that position it was not required to be visible at 45 degrees inboard. You have asked whether the same inboard visibility requirements may be eliminated for front clearance lamps 'for the same reasons'.; The answer is yes. If a front clearance lamp that indicates overal width is not located at the front of the trailer, S4.3.1.1.1 relieves it of the requirement that it be visible at 45 degrees inboard.; I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht87-2.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/15/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Farrel L. Krall -- Manager, Technical Legislation, Navistar International

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/15/72 letter from R.L. Carter to Frank and Frank (Std. 113)

TEXT:

Mr. Farrel L. Krall Manager, Technical Legislation Navistar International 2911 Meyer Road P.O. Box 1109 Fort Wayne, IN 46801

This responds to your letter asking about Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 113, Hood Latch Systems. You asked whether a design for a front-opening hood you are considering for production would comply with section 54.2 of the standard. According to your letter, the front-opening hood would be a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system. The latch system would consist of two separate latches, one on each size at the front corner of the access hood. A s discussed below, a front-opening hood with two secondary latch systems would meet the requirements of section S4.2.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ((NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of th e manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable standard;. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section 54.2 states:

A front opening hood which, in any open position, partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system.

You cited an interpretation letter issued in 1972, which stated that while the agency favors a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard. You stated that since your design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood, you believe the system meets both the intent and the legal requirements of the standard.

As discussed in the preamble to the final rule, section 54.2 permits the following types of installation; a single latch system with two positions, two separate primary latch systems, or separate primarily and secondary latches. 33 FR 6470-71, April 27, 1968 ( copy enclosed). Thus, designs for front-opening hoods with two separate latch systems were specifically contemplated by the agency in establishing section 54.2 and would comply with that requirement.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

March 6, 1987

Dear Ms. Jones:

Navistar International Corporation is considering the design and production of a new front opening hood and requests your interpretation as to compliance of the hood latching mechanism with FMVSS-113, Hood Latch Systems. As shown in the attached photogra phs, the front-opening hood in question is a service access feature integrated into the overall design of a rear opening hood system.

Section 4.2 of FMVSS-113 states, "A front opening hood, which in any open position, partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield, must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system."

The latch system design for our new front opening hood consists of two separate latches, one on each side at the front corner of the access hood, see example of the latch in the enclosed pictures.

We have researched the interpretation file on Standard 113 and find only one letter from the Agency that seems to be relative, copy enclosed. This letter dated June 15, 1972, concerns a Chevrolet hood latch system wherein the Agency stated that "While... we favor a system in which two complete operations are necessary, a system which employs two latches having a single operation will meet the requirements of the standard."

Our design incorporates two separate latches and requires two complete operations to latch the hood. We therefore believe this system meets both the intent and legal requirements of Standard 113 and would appreciate receiving your formal concurrence. Sin ce this is a priority design issue, we would appreciate an expeditious reply. Please call me if additional information is needed.

Very truly yours,

Farrel L. Krall Manager, Technical Legislation 219/461-1008