ID: nht92-8.28

DATE: March 11, 1992

FROM: Mark A. Sedlack -- Product Design Manager, Century Products Company

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Frank Rumpeltin; Rob Wise

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/22/92 from Paul J. Rice to Mark A. Sedlack (A39; Std. 213)

TEXT:

I am writing to request a written clarification of an issue involving FMVSS 213 compliance testing. I have spoken to both Mike Pine and Dee Fujita about this issue and was told that a decision was pending.

It has been Century's understanding that any child restraint which was labeled for use by a child over 20 pounds would be tested using three year old part 572 dummy. The procedure is readily apparent in the standard for forward-facing child restraints. However, it is not readily apparent how a rear-facing seat could be tested using the three-year old dummy, particularly in how the dummy is to be installed.

As a result of recommendations published by various consumer safety groups, telling people to (ignore the manufacturer-a instructions and) use using rear-facing child restraints up to 25 pounds, we have tested our existing convertible seats with a CAMI dummy modified to twenty-five pounds with satisfactory results.

We have not, however, changed our labels or instructions to reflect the higher weight because of the above stated understanding.

Our next step is to test these seats with the three-year old dummy, but we are not clear, nor is the testing facility, as to how this procedure is to be accomplished.

We have recently become aware of a child restraint available at retail which is labeled for use up to twenty-five pounds, and must assume that the procedure for testing has been clarified. If this is the case, could you provide us with a written clarification as to how rear-facing testing is to be done for a child restraint labeled for use up to twenty-five pounds.

ID: nht92-9.25

DATE: February 4, 1992

FROM: Douglas Kubehl -- Technician, Safety Engineering Associates, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/92 (est) from Paul Jackson Rice to Douglas Kubehl (A39; Std. 209)

TEXT:

As an engineer, I have been asked to obtain a legal translation of FMVSS Part 571.209, which I have enclosed for your reference. Specifically, my interest lies in the wording of parts 209-S4.4 and 209-S5.3.

In 209-S.4.4a(1), it is clearly stated that a loop force of 5000 pounds is required to produce a force of 2500 pounds on each structural component. However, part 209-S4.4b(4) seems to be a bit ambiguous. It states: "The length of the pelvic restraint between anchorages shall not increase more than 20 inches or 50 centimeters when subjected to a force of 2500 pounds". My interpretation of this statement is that one must employ a loop force of 5000 pounds to achieve 2500 pounds of force on each component, as specified in S4.4a(1). I am concerned that one could misinterpret the above statement as requiring a 2500 pound loop force, rather than the intended value of 5000 pounds.

Part 209-S5.3a, which addresses the performance of the belt assembly, refers to Figure 5 and requires a tensile force of 2500 pounds. It goes on to say that this force is equivalent to a 5000 pound force being applied to an assembly loop. Figure five is referred to several times throughout the passage, each reference requiring a specific force. Again, because the relationship of the tensile force to assembly loop force is not explicitly stated, we are concerned that one may mistake the tensile force to be the total loop force applied.

We have previously addressed this question to John Lee of NHTSA's enforcement division. Mr Lee indicated that as per enforcement testing, part 209-S4.4b(4) requires a 5000 pound loop load. When asked for a written confirmation/interpretation, Mr. Lee referred us to your office.

We look forward to your response regarding appropriate interpretation. Thank you for your attention in this matter.

ID: nht76-5.4

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: HERLIHY FOR S.P. WOOD -- NHTSA

TO: Celanese Fibers Marketing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 19, 1976, recommendation that paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, be amended to clarify that the temperature specified in the "resistance to light" test procedure is intended to be "black panel" temperature rather than "bare bulb" temperature.

The procedures outlined in Standard No. 209 for the "resistance to light" test were adopted from the Bureau Standard's procedures for testing seat belts. The standard was developed by an industry and government group, which included Celanese Fibers, as a simplification and improvement of the A.S.T.M. Designation E42-64 procedure. The "resistance to light" test was established to test nylon webbing, which was the standard material used in seat belt webbing at that time.

We recognize, however, that the industry now uses decron and polyester materials in seat belt webbing, and that the Standard 209 test procedure developed to test nylon does not give meaningful results for these new materials. Therefore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not enforce the requirements of paragraph S5.1(e) of Standard No. 209 in the case of seat belt webbing made of dacrons and polyesters, and will not until appropriate testing procedures can be developed and incorporated in the standard for these new materials.

Procedures for testing systems containing materials other than nylon are under development and we plan to initiate rulemaking to incorporate these procedures into standard 209. You should understand that our commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will be issued. A decision as to the issuance of the rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

We would appreciate any data you may be able to provide regarding colorfastness tests for fabrics other than nylon.

SINCERELY,

ID: nht78-1.17

DATE: 02/17/78

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

TO: Mr. Wirtz

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 17, 1977, inquiring about tire endurance tests.

The tire endurance test proposed in Docket No. 74-2, Notice 1, has not been adopted by this agency. Comments received in response to the notice were generally critical of the suggested amendment. The agency found the comments essentially meritorious and, thus, is at this time contemplating closing the docket on the proposed revision. The tire endurance test currently prescribed in Standard 109 remains in effect and should be regarded as establishing the performance level necessary for compliance.

If you wish to obtain copies of the SAE standards, you should contact the SAE directly at the following address:

Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. 400 Commonwealth Drive Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15096

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Docket Section -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

October 17, 1977

Standard No. 109 (49 CFR 571.109) - Registration No. 74-2 notice from January 10, 1974

Passenger car tires which shall be labeled with the symbol DOT must among others be subjected to the tire endurance test. In the notice No. 1, registered under No. 74-2, the proposal was made to replace the tire endurance test defined in MVSS 109 by a new SAE-procedure showing some changes in the testing conditions compared with the test method defined in MVSS 109.

Would you be kind enough to inform me whether the new SAE test procedure (published under registration No. 74-2) was put into force for the performance of the tire endurance test according to MVSS 109, and which of both test methods is obligatory for the proof of tires to conform to the requirements of MVSS 109.

At the same time I ask you to place to my disposal all SAE standards regarding tire test procedures.

Sincerely Wirtz -- General manager

ID: nht78-1.35

DATE: 05/11/78

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

TO: Dr. Arthur Yeager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your telephone request of March 24, 1978, asking whether the seats in school buses are sufficiently strong to allow the installation of seat belts. You stated that some manufacturers are indicating that they cannot install seat belts because the floors of larger school buses cannot withstand the forces generated by seat belts.

As you indicated, Notice 5 of Docket 73-3 stated that school bus seats should be strong enough to withstand the forces seat belts would impose upon them. This statement was based upon the fact that the seats would be designed to comply with the other force requirements of the standard which would increase the strength of the seats making them capable of withstanding seat belt loads. At the time of that notice, there were special seat belt requirements for seat belts in school buses in the then proposed Standard No. 222. These seat belt requirements would have mandated lower belt load requirements than those found in Standard No. 210 which currently applies to school buses (under 10,000 pounds GVWR). The seats in larger school buses should be sufficiently strong to withstand the former proposed force requirements of Standard No. 222, but they might be incapable of withstanding the belt load requirements of Standard No. 210.

Manufacturers who indicate that the seats or floors of larger buses are not strong enough to install seat belts probably misunderstood the belt requirements for large buses. Seat belts can be installed for passenger seats in larger school buses without complying with any existing seat belt requirements. Seat belts for passenger seats are not required, for example, to comply with Standard No. 210. Therefore, a State would be permitted to establish their own acceptable belt load requirements for these seat belts in large school buses. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests that States adopt the belt load requirements previously proposed for Standard No. 222. School bus seats currently in production should be sufficiently strong to withstand the former proposed belt load requirements.

ID: nht76-4.26

DATE: 09/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 26, 1976, question whether the "no lockup" requirement of S5.3.1 and S5.3.2 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, requires wheel sensors on both axles of a tandem axle system in those cases where the "no lockup" performance is provided by means of an antilock system. I have enclosed a detailed discussion of this issue that responded to a similar question from another manufacturer. The response should answer your question.

Yours truly,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

B.F. Goodrich Engineered Systems Company

July 26, 1976

JOHN W. SNOW -- ADMINISTRATOR -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF MVSS 121

Gentlemen:

Section S.5.3.1.A (for trucks and buses) and Section S.5.3.2.A (for trailers) of MVSS 121 states that wheel lock-up shall not occur on any wheel above 10 M.P.H., except for controlled lock-up of wheels allowed by an anti-lock system.

It is understood that a manufacturer is not required to utilize an anti-lock system to meet the "no lock-up" requirement, however, if a manufacturer does choose to utilize the "controlled lock-up" exception of S.5.3.1.A and S.5.3.2.A, by installing an anti-lock system, it must control the lock-up of the wheels which are pneumatically controlled by that system (reference attached copy of letter dated March 7, 1975 to Harold D. Shall from James C. Shultz). Therefore, it is our interpretation that the vehicles' anti-lock system, if included, must include a wheel speed sensor on each wheel, that is pneumatically controlled by the anti-lock logic module valve. Is this correct?

We will appreciate your official ruling on this pressing matter at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

Richard J. Brandewie -- Program Manager, Highway Products

cc: D. L. Haines; C. D. McCarty

ID: nht74-2.44

DATE: 05/11/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Adams & Westlake Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 13, 1974, asking whether S5.3.2 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217, "Bus Window Retention and Release," permits the use of more than one release mechanism on any one opening if each mechanism requires a separate motion to release.

Standard No. 217 does not prohibit the use of more than one separate release mechanism for a single opening. However, S5.3.2 does limit to two the number of total force applications, and this limits the number of separate release mechanisms to two. If two release mechanisms are used, each must be operated by only one force application, and one of these force applications must differ by 90 degrees to 180 degrees from the direction of the initial push-out motion of the emergency exit.

Of course, in using this configuration, the other requirements pertaining to emergency exists and release mechanisms in Standard No. 217 must also be met.

YOURS TRULY,

March 13, 1974

Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Mr. Larry Schneider

In regards to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #217, "Bus Window Retention & Release", please refer to S5.3.2 which states:

"The release mechanism or mechanisms shall require for release one or two force applications."

Is this to be interpreted that more than one mechanism, each requiring a separate motion to release, can be used on any one opening?

This question is prompted by reason of a car body structural member, at center line of rear window opening, which makes a single mechanism unsuitable.

Your earliest reply will be appreciated.

Earl V. Gordon -- Manager of Engineering, THE ADAMS & WESTLAKE CO.

cc: H. C. Gildner, Vice-President, Transportation Sales; C. M. Miller, Vice-President, Engineering

ID: nht74-4.43

DATE: 01/15/74

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

TO: Farrar & Farrar

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 17, 1973, regarding rules and regulations pertaining to tire ply bonding and adhesion strength, and to tire ratings as related to number of plies.

There are no Federal regulations that contain specific requirements for ply bending and adhesion strength, per se, in tires. However, a measure of tire structural strength is provided by the plunger energy test included in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109, copy enclosed. The high speed and endurance tests also form a part of the tire evaluation process. Poor bonding and adhesion of plies could cause premature separation and failure in these tests.

There is no categorization in the Federal standard that relates tire mating to number of plies, except that labeling of tire sidewalls is required to express values for load rating, maximum inflation, and number of plies. The enclosed booklet entitled "Consumer Tire Guide" shows in its tables of tire load limits how ply ratings have been related to load ratings in tire industry practice. Recent trend in the industry has been to phase out the ply rating system and to substitute in its place the "load range" system denoted by markings with letters.

With regard to test methods and procedures used in tire analysis, we recommend your examination of the following standards of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) and the American National Standards Institute (AMSI).

ASTM 885-72 "Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabrics and Industrial Filament Yarns made from Man-made Organic Base Fibers" 1973 Edition or ANSI-L 14.231-1973 (2nd Edition) approved August 10, 1973.

ASTM D 2969-71T "Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabrics, Filaments, and Strands made from Wire"

ASTM D 2970-71T "Tire Cords, Tire Cord Fabrics, and Industrial Yarns made from Class"

ENCLS.

ID: nht75-1.7

DATE: 02/07/75

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

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

N40-30 FEB 7 1975

Mr. Tatsuo Kato Staff, Safety Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. P. O. Box 1606 Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632

Dear Mr. Kato:

This responds to your December 18, 1974, question whether the test procedure in S7.11.2.1 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems, that specifies "Accelerate immediately... after each stop" can be interpreted to permit a maximum rate of acceleration to the initial test speed of 60 mph. You also ask whether, in the case of a vehicle incapable of attaining 60 mph, the S5.1 requirement that it be tested "at the highest speed attainable in the time or distance interval specified" can also be interpreted to permit a maximum rate of acceleration.

Both of these specifications permit acceleration at maximum speed. As in the case of any performance requirement, when a test procedure is not specified, a manufacturer must only "exercise due care" to assure himself that each of his vehicles meets the requirements, by selecting a reasonable test procedure to demonstrate compliance. In fact the NHTSA has consistently stated that, even when a test procedure is stated, a manufacturer may use a different procedure, so long as it is calculated, in the exercise of due care, to demonstrate that the vehicle would comply if tested in accordance with the procedure.

Because the NHTSA has chosen not to specify an acceleration rate in S7.11.2.1 for fade tests, the manufacturer may reasonably choose the maximum or near maximum acceleration rate which ensures the greatest cooling effect in the brake assembly. This interpretation is also true for vehicles which are unable to attain 60 mph and must therefore reach their "highest speed" under S5.1 prior to braking.

Therefore, in both cases cited, you may interpret the procedures to permit acceleration at "maximum rate" as specified in S7.11.3.1.

Yours truly,

Richard B. Dyson Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht74-4.6

DATE: 06/27/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 29, 1974, concerning a problem with retreaded tires experienced by your constituent, Mr. Leon Mentzer of Lancaster. Mr. Mentzer was concerned that a pair of retreaded tires which he purchased and returned as the new tread came off after 15 miles were, according to the dealer, to be retreaded again and resold. He asks if there are Federal regulations regarding retreads.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 (49 CFR 371.117 (copy enclosed)) does specify certain requirements for passenger car retreaded tires, primarily in the areas of rasing selection and processing, treadwear indicators, and labeling. The standard at one time contained performance requirements as well, but these requirements were successfully challenged in an industry-sponsored lawsuit (H & H Tire Company v. Volpe, 471 F.2d 350 (7th Cir. 1572). The re-retreading of a tire in the situation described by Mr. Mentzer would not fail to conform to Standard No. 117 if the casing were not damaged in a manner described in the standard. A further retreading, if done properly, would not necessarily be unsafe.

ENCLS.

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

May 29, 1974

James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

My constituent, Mr. Leon Mentzer, R.D. 6, Box 951, Lancaster Pennsylvania 17604, has expressed concern to me in regard to two re-capped tires he recently purchased.

After driving on the tires for approximately fifteen miles, the re-tread came apart. After retaining an attorney he did succeed in getting a refund of his purchase price. What concerned him more was a remark made by the seller when the tires were returned to the effect that they would be re-capped and resold.

Mr. Mentzer wonders if there are Federal regulations regarding re-capping of tires. Any information you may be able to provide which I may send along to him would be much appreciated.

Edwin D. Eshleman