ID: nht79-1.12

DATE: 09/26/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Essex Group

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning Essex Group Wire Assembly Division 6233 Concord Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48211

Dear Mr. Borovik:

This is in reply to your letter of August 7, 1979, asking whether "trailer warning lamps should flash or be steady-burning" when the towing vehicle's hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 does not require trailers to be equipped with hazard warning signal lamps, and you may design your trailer tow electrical package without reference to it. Lack of Federal regulation in this area, however, means that each State may set its own requirements, and you should ascertain whether such exist before finalizing your design.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ESSEX GROUP WIRE ASSEMBLY DIVISION 6233 Concord Ave. Detroit, Michigan 48211

August 7, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Gentlemen:

Reference is made to FMVSS 108, paragraphs 4.1.1.32, 4.5.4 and 4.6.

We are developing a trailer tow electrical package for passenger cars and light trucks. Critical to the design is the logic for the signalling functions of optically (and electrically) combined lamps on trailers. Specifically, when the hazard warning system is actuated and the service brakes are applied, should the trailer warning lamps flash or be steady-burning? FMVSS 108 does not provide explicit direction.

We request a position from the DOT whether the lamps should flash or be steady burning in the above situation.

Very truly yours,

Daniel I. Borovik Director of Development and Planning

DIB/lg

ID: 6973

Dr. Carl C. Clark
Safety Systems Company
23 Seminole Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21228-5638

Dear Dr. Clark:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205). More specifically, your letter indicated your belief that Standard No. 205 permits a prime glazing material manufacturer to designate an item of glass-plastic glazing that it manufactures as "Item 14" glazing if that glass- plastic glazing item passes all the tests specified for Item 14 glazing. It is your view that it is irrelevant whether the individual glass layers in the glass-plastic glazing are tempered or annealed glass. Your understanding is correct.

Standard No. 205 specifies the performance requirements for Item 14 glazing, through a series of 14 tests designated for that item of glass-plastic glazing material. No test applicable to Item 14 glazing specifies that any individual layer, either glass or plastic, of this laminated glazing is to be tested separately. Instead, the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing set forth performance levels that must be achieved by the glazing as a laminate.

One of the 14 tests designated for Item 14 is Penetration Resistance, Test No. 26. You are correct in noting that, effective September 23, 1991, Test No. 26 specifies the glass-plastic specimen is to be clamped into a test fixture before the specimen is tested. If an item of glass-plastic glazing passes each of the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing, including Test No. 26, with clamping, and complies with Standard No. 205's labeling and certification requirements, the prime glazing material manufacturer of the material may designate that item of glass-plastic glazing as Item 14 glazing.

You were also correct in your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits Item 14 glazing to be used for passenger car glazing in any position except the windshield of convertibles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:3/5/92

ID: nht92-7.47

DATE: April 9, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Carl C. Clark -- Safety Systems Company

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/8/92 from Carl C. Clark to Paul J. Rich (Rice) (OCC 6973)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S 571.205). More specifically, your letter indicated your belief that Standard No. 205 permits a prime glazing material manufacturer to designate an item of glass-plastic glazing that it manufactures as "Item 14" glazing if that glass-plastic glazing item passes all the tests specified for Item 14 glazing. It is your view that it is irrelevant whether the individual glass layers in the glass-plastic glazing are tempered or annealed glass. Your understanding is correct.

Standard No. 205 specifies the performance requirements for Item 14 glazing, through a series of 14 tests designated for that item of glass-plastic glazing material. No test applicable to Item 14 glazing specifies that any individual layer, either glass or plastic, of this laminated glazing is to be tested separately. Instead, the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing set forth performance levels that must be achieved by the glazing as a laminate.

One of the 14 tests designated for Item 14 is Penetration Resistance, Test No. 26. You are correct in noting that, effective September 23, 1991, Test No. 26 specifies the glass-plastic specimen is to be clamped into a test fixture before the specimen is tested. If an item of glass-plastic glazing passes each of the 14 tests applicable to Item 14 glazing, including Test No. 26, with clamping, and complies with Standard No. 205's labeling and certification requirements, the prime glazing material manufacturer of the material may designate that item of glass-plastic glazing as Item 14 glazing.

You were also correct in your understanding that Standard No. 205 permits Item 14 glazing to be used for passenger car glazing in any position except the windshield of convertibles.

I hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992 if you have any further questions or need additional information.

ID: nht79-3.33

DATE: 08/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Institute For Safety Analysis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 9, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts.

Your research concerning the history of the standard is correct. The first notice of proposed rulemaking on Standard No. 201 (31 F.R. 15212, December 3, 1966) proposed a definition and requirements for the "unrestrained child impact area." When the standard was originally issued in final form (32 FR 2408, February 3, 1967), the unrestrained child impact area definition and requirements were deleted. In the same issue of the Federal Register, the agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking stating that it intended to develop requirements to reduce impact hazards for unrestrained children (32 FR 2417). Although the agency did not subsequently publish any additional notices on Standard No. 201 specifically developed for the unrestrained child, the agency continued work on Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and developed Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, both of which provide improved protection for children riding in motor vehicles.

The agency is currently studying the potential benefits of built-in interior padding, child restraint devices and other means of making the vehicle rear seat a safe environment for child transportation. This work may provide the basis for future rulemaking.

You are also correct that there were administrative law hearings held on Standard No. 201. The record of those hearings, which were held May 22 and 23, 1967, in Detroit, Michigan, and May 24 and 25, 1967, in Washington, D.C., can be found in Docket 1, microfilm roll number 2. Please contact Ms. Hardee (426-2768) of the agency's docket section to make arrangements to view this material.

I hope this information will be of assistance. If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

SINCERLY,

July 9, 1979

Frank Berndt Deputy Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Institute for Safety Analysis (TISA) is a private organization providing assistance in auto safety matters to clients across the country. Our president, Dr. Robert Brenner, was the first Chief Scientist of NHTSA. We are currently working with a Florida law firm which has a case involving General Motors. In that connection, our staff has been reviewing some of the regulatory dockets at the Technical Reference Branch. We have encountered what appear to be some gaps, and we are writing to you for guidance.

During the course of our research of dockets concerning FMVSS 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact -- Passenger Cars," questions have arisen regarding the phrase "unrestrained child impact area." This phrase was included in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, (Illegible Word) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards," Docket 3, Notice 1 issued November 30, 1966. On January 31, 1967, in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making Docket 7, Notice 67-1, the phrase was deleted. The Agency noted its intent to develop requirements to reduce impact hazard for the unrestrained child. However, we have been unable to locate in any subsequent dockets any specific reference to the problem of the unrestrained child. We are hoping that you may be able to assist us in determining why later dockets did not identify requirements directed to the unrestrained child.

We also believe there were administrative law hearings on Standard 201. We have not found any materials from these hearings in our docket searches. Perhaps your office could direct us to a record of these proceedings, if they did, in fact, take place.

Thank you for your time and concern. Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Maureen Lindsey Director of Legal Research

ID: 2791o

Ms. C. Dianne Black
Engineering Manager
Jaguar Cars, Inc.
600 Willow Tree Road
Leonia, NJ 07605

Dear Ms. Black:

Thank you for your letter of April l4, l988, providing further information about the Jaguar headlamp levelling system discussed in your letters of June and October l987 to which I responded on February 1, 1988.

We support your efforts to call the driver's attention to the fact that the system does not automatically return to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustment positions when those loading conditions no longer exist.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ref:l08 d:8/l/88

ID: aorc3.ogm

Mr. Steven R. Fredin
Chairman
Automotive Occupant Restraints Council
c/o Autoliv N.A., Inc.
1320 Pacific Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Fredin:

This responds to your recent letter to Clarke Harper of our Office of Crashworthiness Standards regarding certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and the compliance test procedures adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with respect to that standard.

Sections S4.3(j)(1) and S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209 provide that an emergency-locking retractor must lock before the webbing extends 25 mm (1 in.) when the webbing is subjected to an acceleration of 7 m/s² (0.7 g) within a period of 50 milliseconds (ms). You ask if the 0.7 g acceleration must be constant, if there is an allowable tolerance for the acceleration, if the 0.7 g must be maintained over a certain duration of time, and whether the acceleration trace is allowed to have a certain level of decay or declining acceleration during the test.

After providing background information with respect to the requirements applicable to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and NHTSA's testing of those items, I will respond to your specific question about the test conditions and procedures applicable to the retractor requirements of Standard No. 209.

Congress has authorized the NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C.  30111). NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards (49 U.S.C.  30112, 30115). NHTSA then conducts compliance tests of selected products to determine whether the products, in fact, comply with applicable requirements, usually utilizing test facilities under contract to the agency.

Each FMVSS specifies performance requirements for the vehicles or equipment to which the standard applies. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA provides instructions, known as "compliance test procedures" or "laboratory test procedures" (TP), for use by the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests. One purpose of the TP is to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, rather than differences between testing facilities.

The TP, of course, must not be inconsistent with the test procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the TP generally provides additional detail beyond what is set forth in the relevant FMVSS. In some cases, the TP does not refer to all of the performance requirements established by a standard, and in other cases it may direct the test facility to conduct a test at a lesser stringency than that set out in the standard. Nevertheless, the agency has repeatedly advised both manufacturers and the public that a TP does not limit the requirements of an applicable FMVSS, and each TP reiterates that principle.

While manufacturers are not required to conduct certification tests in any particular manner, any manufacturer that wishes to base its certification of compliance on a test procedure that is different from that included in the standard must necessarily assess whether the results of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the results of the test procedure specified in the standard.

In the instant case, the agency believes that the provisions of S4.3(j)(1) and S5.2(j) are very clear. Under these sections, an emergency-locking retractor must, when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g within a period of 50 ms, lock before the webbing extends more than 25 mm (1 in.). Nothing in the standard purports to require a constant acceleration (or a constant rate of increase of acceleration), to establish a specific period during which the acceleration must be maintained, or to prohibit any "decay" after the 0.7 g level is reached. Therefore, each retractor must be able to meet the locking requirements of the standard regardless of the rate of acceleration, the duration of the acceleration, or the extent of any subsequent "decay."

We note that this interpretation of S4.3 and S5.2 is consistent with the purpose of those requirements, which is to ensure that retractors will lock in the event of severe vehicle deceleration, such as that which is experienced in a crash. In the event of an actual crash, it is unlikely that a retractor will be subjected to a constant rate of acceleration. It is also unlikely that the acceleration will occur within a narrow corridor for a specific duration. Moreover, the acceleration experienced by the retractor may decay during emergency events. Nonetheless, in all instances, the retractor must lock if the seat belt is to properly restrain an occupant.

With respect to your inquiry about tolerances, the TP provides that the retractor should be subjected to an acceleration of 0.72 g to ensure that, even if the test facility's instrumentation is slightly inaccurate, the retractor will be subjected to at least 0.7 g. This, in effect, provides a tolerance for the test facility. However, this does not create a tolerance for the manufacturer. As noted above, NHTSA often directs its test facilities to test in a less stringent manner than that set forth in a standard (in this case, at a slightly higher acceleration, which tends to facilitate retractor lock-up) to assure that a test will not have to be repeated in the event of a slight error. However, notwithstanding the TP, each manufacturer must assure that its retractors will lock when tested at the 0.7 g level provided in the standard; a retractor that did not lock until it experienced 0.72 g would be deemed noncompliant.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209
d.2/4/2000

ID: nht72-2.4

DATE: 04/03/72

FROM: JAMES E. FORRESTER FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Walters Company U.S.A.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of March 7, 1972, requesting the latest information regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 301, clarification of "leakage" and comments regarding U.S. Patent No. 3, 610, 263.

As amendment to FMVSS No. 301 will be issued in the near future in response to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making published earlier, 35 F.R. (Illegible Word). The substance of this action involves extending the scope of the rule as indicated in the Notice, but the details of the final amendment will not be disclosed before issue. A copy of the Notice is enclosed.

Paragraph S4.4 does not mention leakage but refers to fuel spillage which is defined in S3. There is no assurance that this proposal will remain intact in the final rule since the comments from industry, continued research and development work, and many other inputs will influence the course of this rule making.

We are not in a position to comment on the features of any particular device, since our concern is primarily with performance requirements in order to permit originality and choice of different means for design of improved performance. We appreciate the information about your patented fuel tank safety valve assembly, and shall place a copy of this patent in our Docket No. 70-20. This docket is a public file to receive information and comments on matters pertaining to the rule making action on fuel system integrity.

We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

ID: Senator Collins2

ID: nht89-2.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: AUGUST 22, 1989

FROM: BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH -- HARTLEY ASSOCIATES INC.

TO: DEIRDRE FUJITA -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 3-2-90 TO GEN. JERRY RALPH CURRY, NHTSA, FROM CONGRESSMAN HENRY J. NOWAK; ALSO ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-20-90 TO HENRY J. NOWAK FROM BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH, HARTLEY ASSOCS. INC., AND LETTER DATED 3-16-90 TO BARBARA J. KELLEHER-WALSH FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD, NHTSA; [REDBOOK A35; STD. 213]

TEXT: I am a consultant to Century Products Co. for research, development, testing, and evaluation of child restraint systems. Century Products Co. has designed a sun visor for permanent attachment to the Century Model 580 rear-facing infant restraint system. The purpose of the sun visor is simply to protect the infant from the rays of the sun during travel.

This sun visor is constructed of polyester/cotton material with two polyethelene plastic ribs which hold the polyester/cotton material in-place above the infant's head. The forward plastic rib pivots about the shell and the mid rib pivots about the forw ard rib. The visor material is attached to these two stays but not to the restraint system shell itself. The sun visor is designed so that the polyester/cotton material slips over the rear of the infant restraint and is not permanently attached.

Mr. Stephen Kratzke, Office of Chief Counsel, has provided me with letters of interpretation concerning sun visors. These letters state that sun visors attached to child restraints recommended for use by children under 20 pounds must comply with Section 5.2.3.2 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 (FMVSS 213) - Child Restraint Systems when tested according to Section 6.1. Subsequent to receiving these letters of interpretation, a sled test was performed with the Century Model 580 infant res traint with the sun visor in place. During the sled test the sun visor folded back into the storage position and did not contact the infant dummy's head. The sled test was performed in accordance with the requirements of FMVSS 213, S6.1, with the excep tion that the sled pulse exceeded the upper bound of the FMVSS 213 acceleration versus time window, thus assuring that this was a more severe test than NHTSA would perform during the annual testing for enforcement of the standard.

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation of S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS 213 with regard to the Century 580 infant restraint system with sun visor. We request a meeting with you along with members of rulemaking and enforcement on Thursday or Frid ay, August 24 or 25, 1989 to provide you with the restraint system, photographs, test data documenting the sled test conditions, and high speed movies of the test which demonstrate the lack of dummy head contact with the sun visor during the sled test.

If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at (716) 892-6313. Our telefax number is (716) 897-0515.

ID: nht88-2.80

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/01/88 EST

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

TO: C. DIANNE BLACK -- ENGINEERING MANAGER, JAGUAR CARS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 4-14-88, TO ERIKA Z. JONES, FROM C. DIANNE BLACK -- JAGUAR, REF: FMVSS 108, HEADLAMP LEVELLING SYSTEM

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of April 14, 1988, providing further information about the Jaguar headlamp levelling system discussed in your letters of June and October 1987 to which I responded on February 1, 1988.

We support your efforts to call the driver's attention to the fact that the system does not automatically return to the "zero" position from either of the two adjustment positions when those loading conditions no longer exist.