ID: nht72-3.29

DATE: 03/23/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Universal Oil Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 3, 1972, in which you asked several questions concerning the effects of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207 on a type of center console seat manufactured by your company.

Before answering your specific questions about the standard, I want to clear up what seems to be a misconception in your letter about the obligations created by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The Act (Illegible Word) us authority to issue safety standards and provides, in Section 108(a), that no person shall

manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . . any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect. . . unless it is in conformity with such standard.

A dealer or distributor of a vehicle manufactured after the effective date of an applicable standard is thus obligated to maintain the vehicle in conformity with the standard, even though he might be in the "after-market" according to your terminology.

To answer your specific questions:

1. A seat installed on or after January 1, 1972, on a truck manufactured before January 1, 1972, will not have to conform to the standard. A truck manufactured before January 1, 1972, would not have had to conform on the date of its manufacture. Since the standard applies only to the vehicle and not to the equipment separately, the date of the vehicle's manufacture is controlling.

2 and 3. A seat installed on a truck manufactured on or after January 1, 1972, will have to conform to the standard, except that a person who has purchased a truck for his own use and not for resale may have a seat installed after purchase even though the seat does not conform. The standard does not regulate seats as a separate item of equipment and therefore does not expressly prohibit their sale and installation in this fashion.

ID: nht71-3.22

DATE: 06/30/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Fiat Motor Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 19, 1971, in which you request an interpretation of the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206 to the right side door of the Fiat City Taxi Car. I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter.

Your questions and their answers are set forth below. Questions 1 and 2 have been reversed to facilitate discussion.

"Can this door be classified as a sliding door?" Yes, if, as it appears, the mechanism attaching the right side door to the vehicle is a sliding device rather than a hinge system.

"Can the outside door handle release control be inoperative and the door opened only from the inside." Yes, since the right side door is a sliding door, rather than a hinged door, it is not subject to the door lock requirements specified in S4.1.3 of the Standard.

"Which are the loads, the direction and location of the load, and the test procedures to be followed to demonstrate that this door conforms to the Standard 206." The performance requirements and demonstration procedures which apply to sliding doors are specified in S4.3 and S5.3, respectively. S4.3 requires that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for the right side door not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Compliance of the right side door with S4.3 is required by S5.3 to be tested by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door. The total force applied would be 4,000 pounds. S5.3 requires that the testing be done either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture.

"Can this door have only a fully latched position?" Yes. Standard No. 206 does not specify any requirements for latches on sliding doors.

Please write if I can be of any further assistance.

ID: nht71-3.40

DATE: 07/11/71

FROM: CLUE D. FERGUSON -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY J. ZEMAITIS

TO: Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of June 18 and 21, 1971, concerning the application of the proposed requirements for glazing materials (Docket 71-1, Notice 1) as they would apply to heated rear windows and mirrors.

In your letter of June 18 you state that the heating lines used in the rear window continue almost to the bottom of the glass at the ends. You propose putting an abbreviated mark at the bottom left hand corner, with the full trade mark appearing at the bottom center, and ask whether this would(Illegible Word) with the proposed requirements. The answer to this question is no. Paragraph S5.5 of the proposed amendment would require the complete mark to be placed in either the lower left or right hand corner of the rear window.

Your letter of June 21 asks whether it is likely that there will be further amendment to Standard No. 205. You mention that you were told that the proposed amendment should have referred to interior vanity mirrors and not the normal rear view mirror. Finally, you state that if the proposed requirements apply to the normal rear view mirror, you will need to do additional development work.

The proposed amendment to Standard No. 205 is still under consideration, and no final determination has been made as to whether the proposal, or any part of it, will be issued as a final rule. With reference to your comments concerning the normal rear view mirror, S4.3 of the proposal clearly refers to glazing for use in all interior mirrors, including both the normal rear view mirror, and any other interior mirror, such as a vanity mirror. With reference to your comments concerning the need for additional development work, adequate lead times will be provided for in any final rule that is issued.

Copies of your letters will be placed in Docket No. 71-1.

ID: nht71-5.4

DATE: 11/19/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Eastman Chemical Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of November 1, 1971, concerning the status of your petition to amend Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, "Glazing Materials", to allow the use of Uvex plastic sheet in motor vehicles. You request our comments regarding three matters which you list, and which are incorporated into our responses below.

You ask us to "explain that Uvex Sheet Plastic is and has been under active consideration for vehicle glazing approval for some time and that an early decision is anticipated." A notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Standard No. 205 (Docket No. 71-1) was published January 9, 1971 (36 F.R. 326). This notice would allow the use in motor vehicles of plastic materials, not presently allowed, that meet certain specified requirements. This notice is based in part upon a petition submitted by Enstran Chemical. The requirements do not refer to Uvex or any other material by name. The Administration takes no position on whether Uvex material would meet the proposal requirements. A final decision based on this notice is anticipated in the near future.

The notice of proposed rulemaking of January 9, 1971, does, as you indicate, propose other amendments to Standard No. 205. Some of these proposals have engendered substantial interest from industry and have consequently affected the amount of Agency work involved in the rulemaking action.

Finally, you ask if State highway standards preventing the use of Uvex will continue to be effective if Uvex is allowed to be used under the Federal standards. Under section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)), a State motor vehicle safety standard applicable to a particular aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance must be identical to a Federal motor vehicle safety standard applicable to that same aspect of performance. Consequently, a State vehicle standard prohibiting all use of Uvex would be pre-empted to the extent that amendment of Standard No. 205 permits its use.

I hope this clarifies the situation for you.

ID: nht71-5.52

DATE: 06/25/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Robert W. Hunt Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: By letter of May 26, 1971, you requested an interpretation of the newly issued S5.3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (36 F.R. 4607, March 10, 1971). Your question is whether the three-pound weight shown in Figure 9 is the only force permitted on the lengthening stroke of the buckle abrasion test, or whether additional force may be applied.

The three-pound weight is shown in the illustration of the lengthening stroke in Figure 9 for reasons of pictorial accuracy, since it remains attached to the belt throughout the cycle. It is not intended to indicate a three-pound limit on the lengthening stroke force and you are correct in your understanding that additional tension may be applied to obtain the required eight-inch stroke length.

Please advise if we can be of further assistance.

ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY May 26, 1971

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: L. Schneider

Re: Amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Standard No. 209, Paragraphs 571.21, Title 49 of CFR Docket 69-23, Notice 2

When making tests provided for in the addition (d) "Resistance to Buckle Abrasion" of Paragraph S5.3, a condition occurred which led us to request clarification of the intent of this test procedure.

Figure 9 provides for a three-pound weight (B) and it could be interpreted that this weight alone is required to pull the webbing through on the lengthening stroke. It is our understanding that this is not the intention of the specification and that the three-pound weight is provided to offer resistance on the shortening stroke and that additional tension may be applied on the lengthening stroke to be certain that the webbing is pulled through the buckle to obtain a stroke length of 8".

In view of what we consider to be more than one possible interpretation of the intent of the specification we will appreciate clarification.

W. H. SAVAGE, P.E. President

ID: nht71-5.60

DATE: 09/14/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; L. R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Cabot Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of March 10 and July 1, 1971, requesting an exemption from Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117 for experimental tires that you manufacture by buffing off the tread of new tires and then recapping the tires with different compounds. You state that you use these tires for testing carbon blacks by testing the tires on the public highways and on private test tracks.

We do not consider tires manufactured by the method you describe to be retreaded tires within the scope of Standard No. 117 because they are not manufactured from used tires. However, we do consider them to be new pneumatic tires, and subject to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109. We regret that an earlier letter to you of April 7, 1971, may have been misleading in that regard.

Section 108(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)) provides that no person shall --

"manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce . . . any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect . . . unless it is in conformity with such standard."

We consider the testing of these tires on the public roads to be an introduction of them in interstate commerce, and prohibited by section 108(a)(1) unless the tires conform to Standard No. 109. The tires need not be manufactured for sale to the general public

in order for violations of section 108(a)(1) to occur. However, if the testing of these tires is confined to the laboratory or to private roads, the prohibition of the section 108(a)(1) will not apply to them.

A copy of the Act and Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 109 is enclosed for your information.

Enclosures

ID: nht73-4.29

DATE: 06/26/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Southern Connecticut Gas Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter to Mr. David Snyder of this agency regarding information on tests performed on recapped tires, specifically, data comparing failure characteristics of retreaded tires with those of new tires.

The NHTSA does not presently have test data of the specific type you request. We are attempting to obtain that data through research contracts with outside parties, and results of that research, when they are received, will be placed in the rulemaking docket regarding retreaded tires. Other test data for retreaded tires have been placed in this docket (Docket No. 1-8), which is open for public inspection at NHTSA headquarters, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Certain studies have been conducted on the failure rates of tires, and some comparative data have been compiled. One volume with which we are familiar summarizes studies which provided information of this type. It is, Brenner and Harvey, Tire Use Survey, The Physical Condition, Use and Performance of Passenger Car Tires in the United States of America, NBS Technical Note 528, (National Bureau of Standards U.S. Department of Commerce). Copies are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. It should be ordered by SD Catalog No. C13.46:528, prepaid, at 60 cents a copy.

Yours Truly

May 29, 1973

David Synder DOT/NHT SA

Mr. Litant suggested I write to you for information on tests performed on recapped tires.

(Illegible Words) interested in the safety-failure characteristics of recaps vs. standard tread(Illegible Word) tires. Any information in this area would be appreciated. The size of your sampling is pertinent and this figure would be helpful.

I wish to thank you in advance for your cooperation.

James W. Livsey Supervisor, Claims, Safety & Security

ID: nht91-2.36

DATE: March 18, 1991

FROM: George Ziolo

TO: Administrator, US DOT/NHTSA

TITLE: Re Petition for Rectification of an Error, FMVSS 208

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 5-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to George Ziolo (A37; Std. 208)

TEXT:

I advise clients of NHTSA's requirements.

It is my understanding that the seat belt warning system furnished with manual belts need be activated only by the driver's belt in vehicles manufactured between 1-1-72 and 8-31-89 inclusive, in accordance with S7.3.

However, your 49 CFR, revised as of October 1990, requires that a seat belt warning system furnished with manual belts need be activated not only by the driver's belt but also by

the front outboard passenger's belt in vehicles manufactured between 1-1-72 thru 8-31-73 inclusive (S4.1.1.3.1(a) and S4.1.1.3.2); and by

the front outboard and front center passenger's belt, in vehicles manufactured 9-1-73 thru 8-31-89 (S4.1.2.3.1(a), S4.1.2.3.1(b), and S4.1.2.3.2).

In view of the fact that the above represents a more severe requirement than the original one in effect on 1-1-72, and the fact that NHTSA has not in the past retroactively tightened its requirements, the above appears to be an inadvertent error, particularly because S7.3 makes no mention of seating positions other than the one for the driver.

If the above is an error, please confirm this to me for my record and use.

If the above is not an error, please advise me as to when you published this change in the Federal Register. If you have not published it in the Federal Register, I request that you do, including the effective dates of the changed requirement for compliance purposes.

I make this request as a petition under provisions you find applicable. If you wish that I resubmit this petition in another format, please advise me which format is appropriate.

This matter is very important to me and my clients for reasons of both compliance and product liability.

ID: nht92-7.11

DATE: May 8, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: J.W. Lawrence -- Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 10/25/91 from J.W. Lawrence to NHTSA Administrator (OCC 6634)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of October 25, 1991 requesting information on whether metric sizes and threads for attachment bolts would be considered "equivalent hardware for the requirements of S4.1(f) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In general, it is permissible to use metric hardware for the installation of safety belts. However, as explained below, it is unclear whether the metric fastener M12, as described in your follow-up letter of December 13, 1991, is equivalent to the attachment hardware specified in Standard No. 209.

The Department of Transportation is implementing the policy of using metric dimensions, in addition to American Standard dimensions, in our regulations. Currently, FMVSS No. 209 "Seat Belt Assemblies," requires the safety belt anchorage bolt to be

"7/16-20 UNF-2A or 1/2-13 UNC-2A attachment bolts or equivalent hardware" (S4.1.(f)).

The SIZE of the bolt specified in your letter is equivalent to the safety belt anchorage bolt specified in Standard No. 209. Since the M12 nut is approximately halfway between a 7/16 and a 1/2 inch bolt, it is clear that the size would fulfill the requirement of the standard. However, it is not clear from the information provided, whether the class of thread fit of the metric bolt is comparable to the requirements of the standard. The standard does specify a Class 2 bolt. A Class 2 thread provides clearance under all conditions and allows external threads to be plated with no resultant assembly difficulties. This is the most common commercial grade fit. Therefore, if the bolt thread fit is equivalent, we would consider this metric bolt to be equivalent hardware to the bolt specified in Standard No. 209.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht88-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88 EST

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

TO: KOJI TOKUNAGA -- MANAGER, ENGINEERING, ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-27-87, FMVSS 124-ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS, OCC-448, DET-87-063

TEXT: This letter responds to your inquiry in which you ask a number of questions concerning Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) 124 Accelerator Control Systems. I apologize for the delay in this response. In your letter, you describe a new acceler ator control system that operates through electrical rather than mechanical signals.

You state that the moving components of this system are the accelerator pedal, stepping motor arm, linkage, and the throttle lever. When a driver depresses the accelerator pedal, a pedal sensor converts the displacement into a proportional electric sign al. The signal goes through a control unit to a position switch, and then to a stepping motor. This stepping motor works to move the motor's arm and linkage, and they in turn work the throttle lever. Therefore, you say, the engine speed is controlled i n proportion to the amount of accelerator pedal displacement.

You further inform us that Isuzu already has distributed vehicles equipped with this system in Japan, and that the company would like to market this kind of vehicle in the United States. You present three questions and a diagram of the system components , and request an agency response.

First, please be aware that in issuing this interpretation, NHTSA is neither approving, certifying, nor endorsing your new accelerator control system. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, each manufacturer must certify that its produ ct meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. However, based on the information you supplied in your letter, I have the following responses.

Question 1: In this vehicle, Isuzu considers the battery that drives the stepping motor to be one of the energy sources under S5.1, and the return springs (accelerator pedal and throttle lever return springs) the other sources. Is this interpretation correct?

P2

We do not have enough information to state whether the battery that drives the stepping motor, or the return springs would be considered energy sources under S5.1. Section S5.1 of Standard 124 requires, among other things, that there be a minimum of two energy sources capable of returning the throttle to idle whenever the driver removes the opposing actuating force, or if there is a single severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system.

With respect to the battery, if all system elements are operating properly, then it would appear that removing the actuating force will cause the electrical circuit from accelerator pedal sensor to stepping motor to return the throttle to idle. On the o ther hand, if there is a failure caused by a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system between the pedal and the stepping motor, it is not clear to me whether the stepping motor will return to zero, and bring the throttle springs back to idle; or lock the arm and linkage in an "open-throttle" position.

Similarly, it is not clear to me that the accelerator pedal and throttle return springs are capable of returning the throttle to idle in the event of a failure caused by an ACS severance or disconnection. (While you include the throttle lever in your des cription of the accelerator control system, the agency considers it as part of the fuel metering device. However, as NHTSA explained in the preamble to 124, an energy source under the Standard may be attached to the fuel metering device. [37 FR 20033, September 23, 1972.]) Ordinarily, the agency would have no difficulty in finding that either of the throttle return springs is an energy source capable of returning the throttle to idle. But I cannot tell from your description and diagram whether a seve rance or disconnection in the electrical system would cause the throttle to lock in a position other than idle.

I would make the same observation with respect to the accelerator pedal. I can not tell from the information you supplied what impact a severance or disconnection failure would have on the pedal. For example, it is not apparent whether some element in the electrical system senses a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system, so that a sensor transmits a signal to the appropriate energy sources that the throttle should return to idle. If the pedal and return springs can operate mecha nically and in concert to return the throttle to idle in the event of a failure in the accelerator control system caused by a severance or disconnection, then together they may be an energy source under the Standard.

Question 2a: Is a severance in electric wires in this system a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2? Isuzu considers negative because electric wires are not a moving part.

A severance or disconnection of the electric wires in this system would be a severance or disconnection within the meaning of S5.2 of Standard 124.

Section S4.1 of Standard 124 defines a "driver-operated accelerator control system" as

"all vehicle components, except the fuel metering device, that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force."

You stated in your letter that, in this new system, when the driver depresses the accelerator pedal, the mechanical displacement is converted into electrical signals. These electrical signals are transmitted by wires to a control unit that regulates eng ine speed in direct response to pressure on the accelerator pedal, again by means of wires that connect the control unit's electrical signal to the appropriate components. Thus, the control unit, all of the components to which it is connected, and the w ires that make those connections are "vehicle components... that regulate engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control and that return the throttle to the idle position upon release of the actuating force." Under S4.1, then, the control unit, the components to which it is connected, and the wires that make the connection are components of the driver-operated accelerator control system.

Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires that the throttle return to idle "from any accelerator position or any speed...whenever any one component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point." Please note that this languag e does not limit the requirement to disconnections or severances of components that are moving parts. Thus, all severances or disconnections of any component of the accelerator control system are within the ambit of the standard. In this case, since th e wires are a component of the accelerator control system, the throttle must return to idle whenever a wire is disconnected or severed.

Question 2b: If a severance in electric wires were a severance or disconnection under S5.2, what about a short-circuiting that may result from such a severance? Does the Standard require that the throttle returns to the idle position even in such a c ondition?

Yes. Section S5.2 of Standard 124 requires the throttle to return to the idle position whenever any component of the accelerator control system is disconnected or severed at a single point, regardless of the other consequences of the disconnection or se verance. In the case of this system, this language requires the throttle to return to idle when any wire is severed, even if the severance results in a short circuit.

Question 2c: Our understanding is that a failure (other than severance or disconnection) of a system component itself (i.e. a failure in the accelerator pedal sensor with pedal position switches, control unit, throttle valve position switch, or steppi ng motor) is not subject to the throttle return requirement under the Standard. Is this correct?

Your understanding is partially correct. Standard 124 addresses those circumstances where (1) the driver removes the opposing actuating force; and (2) a severance or disconnection in the ACS causes a failure. Therefore, you are correct that Standard 12 4 addresses only those

failures resulting from a severance or disconnection within the system. However, for electrical systems, shorted or open circuits are the consequence of a change in one or more of the electrical components in the system. The agency would consider such a change a disconnection or severance in the context of this Standard.

Question 3: It is our interpretation that the battery and the electric wires from the battery to the control unit are not a part of the accelerator control system under this definition. (That is, the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system.") Is this interpretation correct?

No, your interpretation is incorrect. We have set out the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system" in section S4.1 above, in response to your Question 2a. With respect to your electrical accelerator control system, the electrical impu lse that travels between the vehicle battery and the control unit is a direct consequence of the driver's applying an actuating force to the accelerator pedal. Given this aspect of your system's design, both the vehicle battery and the electric wires fr om the battery to the control unit fall within the definition of "driver-operated accelerator control system."

I hope you find this information helpful.