ID: nht71-2.14

DATE: 03/12/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: The Bobby-Mac Company, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 4, 1971, in which you submitted for our review a draft of a label that you intend to use on your Bobby-Mac baby chair in accordance with paragraph S4.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213. We have restated the parts of your label whose compliance with the requirements of S4.1 is questionable, followed by our comments.

1. "In each position, reclining to upright, Bobby-Mac exceeds Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 requirements for child seating systems."

We assume that you intend this statement to be your certification, pursuant to Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, that the Bobby-Mac seat complies with Standard No. 213. While certification is not required to be placed on the label by S4.1, placing it there is not inconsistent with either Section 114 of the Act or Standard No. 213. However, we do not consider the statement you have used to be an adequate certification statement. This is because when read literally, the statement deals only with the static force requirements of the standard, as the other requirements, such as those for labeling (S4.1), providing instructions (S4.2), adjustments (S4.3), and others, are neither concerned with the "position " of the child seat nor can they be "exceeded." You must certify compliance with all the requirements of the standard, and your statement should be changed accordingly. Should you wish to use it, the following statement, for child seats manufactured on or after April 1, 1971, would be satisfactory: "This child seating system conforms to all Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to it on the date of manufacture shown below."

2. "Bobby-Mac can only be used in ears with standard auto seat belt which must be used to secure Bobby-Mac safely on front or rear auto seat. In vehicles with seats more elevated from floor than usual passenger auto, thereby not permitting sufficient length in auto seat belt to loop around Bobby-Mac, or if for any reasons auto seat belt is short, auto dealer or auto belt manufacturer can supply belt lengthener."

You have apparently placed this statement on the label to comply with paragraph S4.1(e) of the standard which requires a statement describing in general terms the types of vehicles and designated seating positions in those vehicles in which the system is recommended or not recommended for use. It is your responsibility under the requirement to make cortain that the types of vehicles you recommend have seat belts that are long enough to use the Bobby-Mac as recommended. You have stated that the Bobby-Mac can be used with a standard auto seat belt, but you have also indicated that there are types of vehicles or belt conditions with which the Bobby-Mac should not be used without some modification. We believe that your exceptions should be stated more objectively, such as prescribing the minimum belt loop length above the seat cushion that is required, so that a consumer can more accurately determine whether you are recommending the Bobby-Mac for use in his vehicle.

With reference to your recommendation concerning seat belt lengtheners if these lengtheners are not available by April 1, 1971, your label would not comply with the requirement. If they are available, your label should describe them in sufficient detail, such as by part number, so that consumer will know precisely what they must obtain in order to properly install the Bobby-Mac child seat. Your seat would be required to meet the force requirement of the standard when tested in the vehicles in which you recommend it for use and using any of the seat belt modifiers that you recommend for use with it.

3. "When Bobby-Mac is used for older, taller youngster, it must be used auto seat whose seat back or head restraint extends at least 6" above top of Bobby-Mac seat bucket."

In this case, you indicate that a child of a certain height must be placed at only certain seating positions. In order to provide consumers with some objective criteria by which they can determine whether Bobby-Mac is appropriate for their vehicles, the minimum height of the child that needs the additional head restraint protection should be provided, rather than describing him as merely "older" or "taller." In addition, it would be preferable if you specified the total seat back height above the seat cushion that is necessary for the children you have in mind, rather than indicating this measurement as the distance from the top of the child seat bucket. The information would be more useful to consumers, as it would allow them to determine the appropriateness of the Bobby-Mac without first obtaining one.

4. Finally, based upon the photographs submitted with your letter, the Bobby-Mac seat does not appear to be a rearward-facing child seat. If this is the case, the statement, "For use only on forward-facing vehicle seats," as required by S4.1(g), must be included on the label.

Please write if you have further questions.

ID: nht92-3.42

DATE: September 23, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Gary L. Hopkins -- VP & G.M. Control Systems Products, Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/3/92 from Gary L. Hopkins to Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA (OCC-7633)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 3, 1992, seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 124, Accelerator Control Systems (49 CFR S571.124). More specifically, your letter sought "confirmation of (y)our position that vehicles equipped with electronic engine control systems ... which include an electronic treadle assembly are not covered by the scope and requirements of FMVSS #124." As explained in detail below, your understanding is incorrect. Standard No. 124 applies to all listed vehicle types, regardless of whether their engine control systems use electronic or mechanical means to control the engine.

The purpose of Standard No. 124 is to reduce deaths and injuries caused by vehicles that continue to supply fuel to the engine when there is a malfunction in the accelerator control system. To ensure that drivers could bring vehicles that experience a problem with the accelerator control system to a controlled stop, instead of having the vehicle continue to speed forward, Standard No. 124 requires that the vehicle's throttle return to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force from the accelerator control and that the throttle return to idle whenever there is a severance or disconnection in the accelerator control system. The safety need for these requirements is the same for all vehicles, regardless of whether their accelerator control system is electronic, mechanical, or some other type of technology.

S4.1 sets forth the following definitions:

Throttle means the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver-operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver-operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed.

Fuel metering device means the carburetor, or in the case of certain engines, the fuel injector, fuel distributor, or fuel injection pump.

Driver-operated accelerator control system means 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 said in your letter that the electronic treadle assembly in your company's accelerator control system "modulates an electric signal, received from an outside source, in response to the input of the operator's foot. This signal is an input to the engine electronic controller which in turn provides electronic signals that operate the engine fuel injectors to

control engine power."

You asserted that the electronic treadle assembly is not a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. Based on the information provided in your letter, we agree. Standard No. 124 expressly provides that the throttle must be part of the fuel metering device. In the example you have given, the electronically controlled fuel injectors, together with any pumps or other metering systems connected to those injectors, appear to be the "fuel metering device." Based on the information provided in your letter, it appears that the electronic treadle assembly would be considered to be part of the "driver-operated accelerator control system," because it is a vehicle component that regulates engine speed in direct response to movement of the driver-operated control.

You went on to assert that no component of an electronically controlled diesel engine would be considered a throttle, as that term is defined in Standard No. 124. We disagree. Standard No. 124 defines a throttle as "the component of the fuel metering device that connects to the driver- operated accelerator control system and that by input from the driver- operated accelerator control system controls the engine speed." Every engine design of which we are aware, including electric, diesel, conventional gasoline, and Wankel rotary gasoline, has a component that controls the engine speed in response to inputs from the driver. That component is the throttle. Indeed, an engine design without a throttle would not allow the driver to control the engine speed.

NHTSA has already addressed the applicability of Standard No. 124 to electronic accelerator control systems. In an August 8, 1988 letter to Mr. Koji Tokunaga of Isuzu (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 would apply to a proposed electronic accelerator control system. In a November 9, 1988 letter to Mr. J.E. Carr of Caterpillar (copy enclosed), the agency explained how Standard No. 124 applies to an electronically controlled diesel engine. Hence, the issue of how Standard No. 124 applies to electronic accelerator control systems has been settled at least since 1988. Given the broad language used in the standard, the agency's previous interpretations of the standard, and the compelling safety need to prevent runaway vehicles if malfunctions should occur in the accelerator control system, we must reject your suggestion that Standard No. 124 should be interpreted in such a way that it does not apply to electronically controlled diesel engines.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions or would like some additional information on this subject, please feel free to contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 10253

Mr. Bruce Monnie
Senior Designer
Advanced Design Associates
Tigard, OR 97223

Dear Mr. Monnie:

This responds to your letter asking about Federal requirements for a product you have developed to improve the securement of child safety seats. You stated that the product is a one-piece steel bracket which "is installed on the seatbelt of the vehicle, to prevent slippage between the lap and shoulder portions of the seatbelt and to tighten up slack in the lap portion of the seatbelt." You indicated that the product would be installed on a temporary basis and that it would be sold in the "aftermarket" to persons owning child restraint systems. You request an interpretation of whether Standards No. 209, 213, or any other standard would apply to your device.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency does not approve, certify or endorse any vehicles or equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet all applicable standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that would apply to your product. It appears from your description of the product that it would be a type of device that we call a "locking clip." A locking clip is a bracket into which a vehicle's lap and shoulder belt webbing is threaded. A locking clip tightens the webbing around a child safety seat and prevents the safety seat from moving easily. We have no safety standard that applies to locking clips. Standard 209 sets forth requirements for new seat belt assemblies. However, since your product would not be installed as part of a new seat belt assembly, the standard would not apply. Standard 213 is our standard for child restraints. It applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less" (S4 of Standard 213). Since your device would not itself restrain, seat or position a child, it would not be a child restraint system. Therefore, Standard No. 213 would not apply to your product.

While no FMVSS applies to your product, your device is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 U.S.C. ''30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety- related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses are subject to 49 U.S.C. section 30122, which prohibits them from installing the device if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard. It appears unlikely from the nature of your product that it would be placed in vehicles by commercial businesses instead of child restraint owners. However, if your product were to be installed by persons in those categories, they must ensure that its installation does not compromise the safety protection provided by a child restraint system or the vehicle belt system. The prohibition of section 30122 does not apply to the actions of vehicle owners in adding to or otherwise modifying their vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment.

Please note that we have a concern about the possible misuse of your device. Our safety standards require specific levels of performance for a vehicle's safety belt system. For example, Standard 208 has requirements that ensure that a vehicle's lap and shoulder belts are installed to distribute the crash forces over the skeletal structure of the occupant. The safety standards also have requirements for belts to automatically lock and retract. Your device attaches to the belt system, and will stay in place until the consumer removes it. Since it attaches to the belt system, it could affect the ability of the system to protect an adult occupant, or a child restrained without a child safety seat. We suggest that you provide clear instructions to the consumer to remove the device from the belt webbing when the belt system is used without a child restraint system.

In closing, I note for your information that NHTSA published a final rule in October 1993 requiring the safety belts in new motor vehicles to be capable of tightly securing child safety seats, without the necessity of the user's attaching any device, such as a locking clip, to the seat belt webbing, retractor, or any other part of the vehicle. The rule applies to vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1995. I have enclosed a copy of the rule.

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

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:208#209#213 d:10/27/94 Please note that the "National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act" and the "Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act" to which the information sheet refers have recently been recodified in Title 49 of the United States Code. This means that the citations used in the information sheet are outdated; however, the substantive requirements described in the sheet have not changed.

ID: 17557.drn

Mr. Harry C. Gough, P.E.
Automotive Engineering Professional Specialist
Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles
60 State Street
Wethersfield, CT 06161

Dear Mr. Gough:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 217's retroreflective tape requirements for school bus rear emergency doors.

You enclose a photograph of a school bus rear exit door which shows that the retroreflective tape above the door opening is interrupted by the words "Emergency Door." Your letter states that the gap caused by the words is 16 inches (40 centimeters) long. In the retroreflective tape outlining each of the two sides of the emergency door, there also are gaps in each of the four corners that would have been formed had the two horizontal tapes and two vertical tapes met. You ask three questions, restated below, about whether gaps are permitted in the tape.

Question 1: Is there an interpretation of the language in S5.5.3 of FMVSS 217 allowing the gap retroreflective tape as heretofore described?

Standard No. 217, Bus emergency exits and window retention and release, specifies emergency exit identification requirements at S5.5. School bus emergency exit identification requirements are at S5.5.3, and state:

(a) Each school bus emergency exit ... shall have the designation "Emergency Door" or "Emergency Exit," as appropriate, in letters at least 5 centimeters high, of a color that contrasts with its background. For emergency exit doors, the designation shall be located at the top of, or directly above, the emergency exit door on both the inside and outside surfaces of the door....

 * * *

(c) Each opening for a required emergency exit shall be outlined around its outside perimeter with a retroreflective tape with a minimum width of 2.5 centimeters and either red, white, or yellow in color ...

In previous NHTSA compliance tests conducted on school buses manufactured by Thomas Built Buses and by Blue Bird Body Company, the agency found gaps in the retroreflective tape similar to what you describe in your letter. NHTSA's Safety Assurance office determined in those tests that the requirements of Standard 217 were not violated. The agency determined that there was not enough space at the top of the exit to place the words "Emergency Door" and the 2.5 centimeter tape without either: (a) taping part of the upper door trim and rivets; or (b) taping over the "School Bus" designation. Both of these alternatives were deemed undesirable. Taping over trim and rivets would likely reduce the wearability of the tape, and taping over the school bus designation would reduce the clarity of the sign. Thus, the gaps were permitted.

Without knowing the exact measurements of your school bus, we cannot make a determination that placement of the tape, as you described, is acceptable. However, if the space is limited as it was on the buses that NHTSA evaluated, then interrupting the tape with the "Emergency Door" designation is an acceptable means for a manufacturer to try to meet both S5.5.3(a) and (c). You can send us the measurements of the vehicle if you wish, for us to further review the matter.

Question 2: If the gaps are allowed then how large of a percentage of a given perimeter edge would be acceptable.

In July 7, 1993 and June 8, 1994 letters to Blue Bird and Van-Con, respectively, NHTSA permitted interruptions in the tape necessary to avoid and/or accommodate curved surfaces and functional components, such as rivets, rubrails, hinges, handles and tail lights. However, NHTSA said that the tape must be able to identify the location of emergency exits to rescuers and increase the on-the-road conspicuity of the bus. Also, the tape must be applied as near as possible to the exit perimeter.  In these letters, NHTSA did not establish a specified "percentage" of an exit perimeter or of a side of a perimeter that must be outlined to be deemed acceptable.

In the school bus emergency door in your photograph, I note that there are gaps in the tape at the four corners where the two horizontal tapes and the two vertical tapes should meet. If there are no rivets or curved surfaces or other impediments to placement of the tape, as described in the July1993 letter to Blue Bird, tape must be applied so that the horizontal tapes and the vertical tapes meet, forming corners.

Question 3: If the size of the gap at the top edge of the rear door, as previously indicated, is interpreted as excessive then can the words "Emergency Door" be relocated to the top half of the door or alternately can a section of retroreflective tape be located immediately above the words "Emergency Door."

As noted in our answer to Question 1, it is possible that the gap is permitted, depending on the measurements of your bus. Concerning your specific question about possibly relocating the emergency door identification, NHTSA has a longstanding interpretation that the emergency door identification can be on the top half of the emergency exit door. (See, September 22, 1978, letter to Mr. Tydings, Thomas Built Buses.)

I note that in a March 16, 1995, letter to you, then-Chief Counsel Philip Recht enclosed copies of our June 8, 1994, letter to Van-Con, Inc., and March 28, 1994, and July 7, 1993, letters to Blue Bird Body Company. For your convenience, I am again enclosing copies of those letters.

I hope this information is helpful. In the future, it would help us in responding to you if you would provide a telephone number at which you can be reached. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
Enclosures (4 letters)
ref:217
d.9/2/98

ID: 1982-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/02/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

MAR 2 1982

NOA-30

Mr. William E. Lawler Specifications Manager Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. 120 West Main Street Carmel, Indiana 46032

Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You ask for clarification of the cases in which a 5,000-pound attachment bolt may be used in lieu of a 9,000-pound bolt.

Paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of Standard No. 209 specifies that attachment bolts used to secure the pelvic restraint of a seat belt assembly to a motor vehicle shall withstand a force of 9,000 pounds, except that "attachment bolts of a seat belt assembly designed for installation in specific models of motor vehicles in which the ends of two or more seat belt assemblies cannot be attached to the vehicle by a single bolt shall have a breaking strength of not less than 5,000 pounds." The intent of the requirement in S4.3(c)(1) is to assure that inadequate attachment bolts will not be used to attach seat belt assemblies to a vehicle. A 5,000-pound bolt may be used only if the belt assembly is designed for use in specific models of vehicles in which only one end of a belt assembly can be attached by a single bolt.

In answer to your question, the agency does not "have in mind" certain brands or models of vehicles which would qualify under this exception, and the exception is not limited to single-seat vehicles. Further, the requirement does not mean that a seat belt assembly that can be used in more than one application must be installed with a 9,000-pound bolt. If a particular assembly is designed for use in several different models in all of which only one end of the belt assembly can be attached by a single bolt, then a 5,000-pound bolt is sufficient. The distinction is that an aftermarket belt for universal application must be accompanied with a 9,000-pound bolt, because in some vehicle models it would be possible to mount two ends of seat belt assemblies with a single bolt.

You should note that paragraph S4.1(k) of Standard No. 209 requires the manufacturer of seat belt assemblies for aftermarket use to furnish an instruction sheet stating whether the assembly is for universal installation or for installation only in specifically stated motor vehicles. If you - provide 5,000-pound bolts for any of your assemblies, the instruction sheet required by S4.1(k) should specify that the assemblies are to be used only in the vehicle models you list.

I hope this has answered all your questions.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 26, 1982

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W., Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Sir:

Paragraph S4.3(c)(1) of Standard No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) requires a 9,000 lb. breaking strength attachment bolt "...except that..." 5,000 lb. breaking strength attachment bolts may be used under certain conditions.

We are uncertain about the intent of two phrases in Paragraph S4.3(c)(1):

1. "...designed for installation in specific models of motor vehicles...", and

2. "...ends of two or more seat belt assemblies cannot be attached to the vehicle by a single bolt...."

With regard to the first phrase, does the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have in mind certain brands, models, or types of vehicles? Does the phrase mean that a given seat belt assembly must be designed for a given application in order to attach it (in that application) by 5,000 lb. breaking strength bolts? Conversely, does the phrase mean that a seat belt assembly that may be used in more than one application must be installed using 9,000 lb. breaking strength bolts?

Phrase two raises questions, also. Does it mean that the 5,000 lb. breaking strength bolt may be used only with single seat vehicles? If a vehicle has more than one seat, must the seats be situated so that it is physically impossible to mount (for example) the right end of the left seat belt assembly and the left end of the right seat belt assembly to the same bolt? If the attachment hardware is designed to accomodate one and only one attachment bracket on a single attachment bolt, may a 5,000 lb. breaking strength bolt be used?

We would appreciate receiving from you an official written explanation of the intent of S4.3(c)(1) of Standard No. 209.

Thank you for your assistance.

Yours very truly,

William E. Lawler Specifications Manager

WEL:ld

ID: 1982-1.32

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. -- Shizuo Suzuki, Engineering Office of North America

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. Engineering Office of North America Suite 707 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. P.O. Box 57105 Washington, D.C. 20037

This responds to your letter asking whether your new wiping system design meets the frequency requirements of Safety Standard No. 104. Windshield Wiping and Washing Systems.

By way of background information, I would point out that the agency does not give advance approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to determine whether its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. The following interpretation only represents the agency's opinion based on the information provided in your letter.

The system described in your letter operates on two settings. One of the settings provides continuous operation at a speed of about 75 cycles per minute. The wipers operate at the same speed for the second setting, but there is intermittence between each cycle. Because of the intermittence, the wipers operate only about 45 cycles per minute. As explained below, it is our opinion that such a system meets the frequency requirements of Standard No. 104.

Section S4.1.1 reads as follows:

S4.1.1 Frequency.

S4.1.1.1 Each windshield wiping system shall have at least two frequencies or speeds.

S4.1.1.2 One frequency or speed shall be at least 45 cycles per minute regardless of engine load and engine speed.

S4.1.1.3 Regardless of engine speed and engine load, the highest and one lower frequency or speed shall differ by at least 15 cycles per minute. Such lower frequency or speed shall be at least 20 cycles per minute regardless of engine speed and engine load.

S9.1.1.4 Compliance with subparagraphs S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 may be demonstrated by testing under the conditions specified in sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of SAE Recommended Practice J903a, May 1966.

The primary issue for this interpretation is whether the system meets the requirement in section S4.1.1.1 for "at least two frequencies or speeds." This issue arises because the wipers operate at the same speed for the two settings, using intermittence to achieve a different number of cycles per minute. It is our opinion that the system does meet this requirement, since the language of the standard speaks of frequencies or speeds. While the speed may be the same for the two settings, the frequencies are different.

The system satisfies the requirements in sections S4.1.1.2 and S4.1.1.3 that one cycle or speed be at least 45 cycles per minute, that the highest and lowest frequency or speed differ by at least 15 cycles per minute, and that the lower cycle be at least 20 cycles per minute (assuming that the requirements are met regardless of engine load and engine speed).

While your wiping system design appears to meet the frequency requirements of Standard No. 104, we do have a possible concern about its safety. On its lower setting, between the periods of intermittence, the speed of the wiper blades would still be at a rate of about 75 cycles per minute. It is possible that operation at such a fast speed might cause chattering of the wipers when used during light precipitation. If that happened, drivers might be less likely to use their wipers during light precipitation. We suggest that you consider that possibility before going forward with your design.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 19, 1981 Ref: 81-106-S

Mr. Raymond A. Peck, Jr., Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Room 5220 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Peck:

We, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., would like to take this time to ask you for your interpretation concerning the wiping frequency requirements of S.4.1.1. of FMSS 104.

Our questions can be found on the attached page.

Your interpretations will be appreciated very much.

Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR COMPANY, LTD.

Shizuo Suzuki Washington Representative Safety

SS:rk

Attachment

cc: Mr. C. H. Raehn Head, Lighting & Visibility Group

QUESTION CONCERNING WIPING SPEED FOR MVSS 104

Please let us know if the following new wiping system meets the wiping frequency requirements of S.4.1.1. of MVSS 104.

New System

The wiping speed (or time) for a cycle (T) is all the same between low speed and high speed cycles.

*Insert figure here

Ordinary System

The wiping speed (or time) for a cycle is different from each other

*Insert figure here

ID: 11540.JEG

Mr. Robert J. Bishop
Manager--Inflator Engineering
BAICO
1501 Midpark Road
Knoxville, Tennessee 37921

Dear Mr. Bishop:

This responds to your letter asking about Standard No. 208's requirements for pressure vessels that are continuously pressurized. Section S9.1 of the standard incorporates certain provisions of the Hazardous Materials Regulations issued by DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA). You noted that you have recently received an exemption from RSPA concerning one of those provisions, 49 CFR 178.65- 11(a). Under RSPA's regulation, you must conduct a pressure test on each cylinder before it is shipped, including holding a specified pressure for 30 seconds. Under the exemption, the hold time for testing each cylinder may be limited to "that which is adequate to show compliance." You asked whether compliance with the provisions of the exemption "satisfies the intent of paragraph S9.1, FMVSS 208."

The answer to your question is that an exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208. However, as discussed below, Standard No. 208 does not incorporate all of the provisions of 49 CFR 178.65-11(a). In particular, Standard No. 208 does not require you to test each cylinder but instead requires you to assure that each cylinder, if tested in accordance with 49 CFR 178.65-11(a), including the 30 second hold time, would meet the specified performance requirements.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards.

Section 9.1 of Standard No. 208 states:

A pressure vessel that is continuously pressurized . . . shall not leak or evidence visible distortion when tested in accordance with ' 178.65-11(a) of this title and shall not fail in any of the ways enumerated in ' 178.65-11(b) of this title when hydrostatically tested to destruction.

You noted in your letter that 49 CFR 178.65-11(a) specifies, among other things, that "each cylinder must be tested at an internal pressure of at least the test pressure and must be held at that pressure for at least 30 seconds." Under RSPA's regulation, you must conduct the pressure test on each cylinder before it is shipped, including holding a specified pressure for 30 seconds. However, paragraph 7b(1) of the exemption RSPA granted you (DOT-E 11494) provides that "the hold time at test pressure . . . may be limited to that which is adequate to ensure compliance."

Your letter raises two issues. The first is whether NHTSA requires each cylinder to be tested. The second is whether a 30 second hold time is required to satisfy Standard 208.

Testing.

Unlike RSPA=s requirements, NHTSA does not require each cylinder to be tested. The RSPA requirement to test each cylinder before it is shipped is a quality control provision. When NHTSA added the requirements for pressure vessels to Standard No. 208 (see May 6, 1972 final rule (37 FR 9222), copy enclosed), the agency adopted some, but not all of RSPA's Specification 39 (49 CFR 178.65). Notably, the "quality control" requirements of RSPA were not adopted. NHTSA stated:

A continuously pressurized vessel is required to conform to the requirements of Specification 39 concerning type, size, service pressure, and test pressure of vessels (paragraph 2 of the specification); seams (6(b)); wall thickness (7); openings and attachments (9 (a) and (b)); safety devices (10); pressure tests (11); and flattening tests (12). The reference to the latter two paragraphs are drafted to make it clear that the quality control aspects of those paragraphs are not included in the standard. The remaining portions of Specification 39 . . . are not incorporated. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, while Standard No. 208 incorporated the pressure test performance requirements of that paragraph, it did not adopt the quality control provisions. There is no requirement in the standard that each cylinder must be pressure tested. However, as explained more below, you are responsible for assuring the compliance of each cylinder with the specified performance requirements.

30-Second Hold Time.

Although the RSPA exemption permits you to test your cylinders for less than 30 seconds, an exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208. Under Standard No. 208, you are responsible for assuring that each cylinder, if tested in accordance with 49 CFR 178.65-11(a), including the 30 second specification, would not leak or evidence visible distortion. However, nothing in Standard No. 208 requires you to test each cylinder or to test for a 30 second minimum. You may be able to provide such assurance by a variety of means, included, but not limited to, engineering analyses, computer simulations, testing each cylinder, sample testing, or a combination of these activities.

While your exemption from RSPA does not change your responsibility under Standard No. 208, you may be able to use the testing you conduct to meet RSPA responsibilities to also meet your Standard No. 208 responsibility. That is, you may be able to base your certification of compliance with Standard No. 208 on the data you already have.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure ref:208 d:5/9/96

ID: 1982-2.26

DATE: 07/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: B. S. Horton

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JUL 26 1982

Mr. Bernard S. Horton 100 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02142

Dear Mr. Horton:

This responds to your recent letter regarding the roof crush requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 216. You ask why convertibles are excluded from the requirements of the standard, yet the BMW 318 which has a "targa" roof is not excluded.

Convertibles were excepted from Safety Standard No. 216 when the standard was first issued in 1971 because it was impossible for most convertibles to comply with the requirements. The legislative history of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), which authorizes the issuance of our safety standards, clarifies that Congress did not intend for the safety standards that would be issued to effectively preclude any type of existing motor vehicle. If no exception had been provided, the requirements of Safety Standard No. 216 would have caused the production of convertibles to cease. For this reason alone, they were excepted from the requirements.

The agency has limited the convertible exception to vehicles for which it is truly impractical to comply. While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible", the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Therefore, passenger cars equipped with a "sun roof", "hurst hatch roof" or "targa roof" do not qualify as convertibles, because they have a fixed, rigid structural member in the described location. This interpretation applies, moreover, whether the rigid structural member joining the "A" and "B" pillars is a hidden reinforcing component or whether the structural member is part of the exterior roof panel.

I am sorry that you are unable to obtain the BMW 318, but this is primarily due to the fact that the manufacturer has chosen not to bring this model into compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. As you probably know, there are other models with "targa roofs" and "hurst roofs" that are in compliance with the standard and currently in use.

You also mention the fact that many vehicle custom shops cut one or more panels from vehicles to make them into convertibles or "targas". You state that there seems to be no prohibition to this. There are certain prohibitions, however. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies that no manufacturer, distributor, dealer or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative in whole or part any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard. This means that custom shops cannot cut panels from a used vehicle's roof if such operation would impair the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 216. Failure to observe this prohibition could result in civil penalties up to $1,000 for each violation. Please note, however, that the custom shops are not precluded by this section from totally removing a vehicle roof, thereby converting the vehicle into a convertible. The prohibition does not apply to such a conversion since the vehicle would not have had to comply with Standard No. 216 if it had originally been manufactured as a convertible.

I realize that these various distinctions may be confusing. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff at 202-426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

100 Memorial Drive Cambridge, MA 02142 July 13, 1982

Frank Berndt, Esq. Office of the Chief Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am trying to determine why one automobile or another might or might not meet Standard 216 or some other standard for roof crush resistance.

Specifically, I have been interested in buying an Americanized version of a BMW 318 cabriolet. I am told that it can't be imported here because it doesn't meet roll-over or roof crush requirements. Yet, as indicated by the enclosed article, convertibles are becoming popular again. They, at least the soft top ones I've seen, have no roof crush resistance.

By my way of thinking, a cabriolet, which is often called a "targa" because it has a section of roof which can be removed, and perhaps a drop down back window behind a bar, should be safer than a soft top convertible. In fact, customizing shops offer the cutting of one or more panels from the many makes of cars to make them into convertibles or "targas". There seems to be no prohibition to this.

Can you clarify why the BMW Cabriolet, in the light of what is on our roads, seems to be singled out as unacceptable?

Thank you very much for your help.

Sincerely,

Bernard S. Horton

BSH/lp

ID: 1982-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fowler-Finch, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 26 1982

NOA-30

Ms. Joann Stewart Account Representative Fowler-Finch, Inc. P.O. 63 New Lebanon Center, N.Y. 12126

Dear Ms. Stewart:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the automatic belt systems in 1979 and 1980-model Volkswagens qualify as a "passive restraint system" under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You need this information to determine if one of your insureds can obtain the discount your company offers for automobiles equipped with passive restraints.

The answer to your question is yes. The Volkswagen automatic belt system qualifies as a passive restraint. The agency has stated that a "passive restraint" is a system that requires no action by vehicle occupants in order to obtain protection. The Volkswagen passive belt automatically surrounds the vehicle occupant without any action on the occupant's part other than closing the vehicle door (i.e., the occupant does not have to touch the belt system). Therefore, the Volkswagen belts you mentioned in your letter are passive restraints, and whether the systems are offered as standard or optional equipment is irrelevant.

I hope this answers all your questions. If you require any further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 20, 1982

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: STEPHEN WOOD, ESQ.

Dear Mr. Wood:

I am an Account Representative for the Fowler-Finch Ins. Agency. One of my insureds has recently inquired about the discount available for automobiles equipped with a "Passive Restraint System". In checking with the insuring company they do not have a clear cut definition or description of what this system is, but only that it must meet the Published Federal Safety Standards. I have contacted the automobile dealer whom the insured has purchased both of his vehicles from and they suggested that I write to Customer Assistance, Volkswagen of America, Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, NJ. I have attached a copy of their return correspondence.

Now I am turning to you for the information which I need. In order to be able to offer this insured the credit for the Passive Restraint System the insuring company is requesting some form of written confirmation that this insured's vehicles Passive Restraint System does or does not meet these mandatory standards.

The vehicles which I am referring to are:

1. 1980 Volkswagen 2 door custom hatchback (v.i.n. # 17A0793616) 2. 1979 Volkswagen 4 door Deluxe hatchback (v.i.n. # 1793850401)

On the 1979 model, the Passive Restraint System was a standard feature; however on the 1980 model the insured requested it as an optional feature and was charged for it.

Would you please help me to determine if these are recognized as meeting the Published Federal Safety Standards? I have enclosed a self-addressed envelope for your convenience and anxiously await your prompt response.

Thank you very much for your help and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Account Representative Enclosure (1)

October 4, 1982

Ms. Stewart Fowler-Finch, Inc. P.O. Box 63 New Lebanon Center, NY 12126

Re: Your letter of September 22, 1982

Dear Ms. Stewart:

In reply to your letter I am enclosing an abstract of a computer printout which is annotated to indicate which codes show that the subject vehicles were equipped with the Volkswagen Passive Seat Belt System.

I am enclosing a copy of Std 208 taken from the CFR. This standard indicates the criteria which a passive belt system must meet to show conformance. Sections particularly applicable have been highlighted.

The government agency which establishes the standards and is responsible for enforcement is the proper party to contact with regard to any system meeting the standard. As I stated on the telephone, the address is:

Department of Transportation 400, 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Attn. Stephen Wood, Esq.

Standard 208 is a performance standard in that certain testing criteria must be met but specific hardware to meet this criteria is not specified. The Volkswagen Passive Belt System consists of a belt attached between a specific seat anchorage and the door and a knee bar installed in a specific vehicle model. the Volkswagen Rabbit. It is designed to allow entrance and exit from the vehicle without detachment of any part of the system. I have enclosed a portion of the owners manual which describes the operation of the system.

Volkswagen has produced vehicles with the Automatic Belt System since 1975. I trust that this may help answer your questions.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

G. Salser Engineer Technical Services

GS/v. No. Encl.

ID: 1983-2.50

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/30/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Benchmark Research Inc. -- Gary Fulmer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Gary Fulmer Benchmark Research, Inc. 9921 NE 135th Pl., #1 Kirkland, WA 98033

Dear Mr. Fulmer:

This responds to your letter asking whether an adapter you plan to manufacture for attachment to child restraint systems must be tested for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR 571.213). The adapter you plan to manufacture snaps onto the bottom of the tube frame of child restraints, and unfolds legs and wheels to convert the car seat into a stroller. Your device does not need to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. However, you might wish to test it to ensure that it does not constitute a safety-related defect when attached to a child restraint and for purposes of product liability.

Section S4 of Standard No. 213 defines a child restraint system as "any device designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." The stroller adapter you plan to produce is not designed to perform any of these functions, and therefore is not a child restraint within the meaning of Standard No. 213. Because the devise is not a child restraint system, it need not comply with any of the requirements of Standard No. 213.

One requirement which might be applicable to the use of your device is set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which states "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or other motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard..." This could be important if the attachment of your stroller adapter to a child restraint system caused the child restraint system to no longer comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213. It appears from your letter, however, that the purchaser of your device would attach it to a child restraint, and not a manufacturer or dealer. The statutory prohibition is not violated when a purchaser attaches a device to an item or motor vehicle equipment. Hence, if my understanding is correct, this would not present any difficulties for your company.

There are two possible reasons which might lead you to try to test this adapter to learn if it affects the performance of child restraint systems to which it is attached. First, if the attachment of your adapter causes the child restraint to provide a lower level of safety, or if all or part of the adapter were to separate from the child restraint in a crash situation, the adapter might well be found to contain a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety. Sections 151-154 of the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1414) require that when an item of motor vehicle equipment contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer of the item must recall and repair or replace the defective equipment without charge to the purchaser.

Second, you may wish to consult an attorney for advice on potential product liability issues which would arise from attaching your adapter to certified child restraint systems. It is possible that some testing of your adapter attached to a child restraint system in a crash situation would be helpful in the event of a product liability suit.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Benchmark Research Inc. Office of Chief Council 9921 N. E. 135th Pl. #1 Vehicle Safety Commission Kirkland, Wa. 98033 400 7th St. S.W. June 28, 1983 Wash., D.C. 20950

To whom it may concern:

A friend of mine, Bob Rodwell from the Small Business Development Center in Seattle called you Monday regarding testing of a product I have. You mentioned that it is not required of this product. Per your discussion with whom I need a written response from you for my records stating that testing of this devise is not necessary.

To refresh your memory and to give you a framework to state your opinion on the product, I am writing a summary of the product.

Briefly, it is a permanently attachable adapter that snaps to the bottom tube frame on all standard child safety car seats. This device houses a set of four folding legs with wheels that click into folded and unfolded position, using a modified version of a standard gurny, the attachment to the car seat frame is universal, being able to adapt to any size and shape.

In summary, this device allows one to simply unsnap the seat belt, leaving the child strapped in the car seat, pull the adapter frame handle, pulling the car seat out car, the legs then unfolding and locking by themselves as part of the gurny action. Now you simply rotate the car seat 90 degrees to lock, and roll the entire device away. I have a prospective buyer for this product and would appreciate hearing from you on this matter as soon as possible since it will help to expedite sale of the item. Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Sign off: 8:47 A.M. Eastern Time, FEBRUARY 7, 1996