ID: nht88-3.61

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/03/88 EST

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: D. BURKARD; H. T. EBNER; ALFRED TEVES

ATTACHMT: OCTOBER 9, 1981 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO KAWANO, FEBRUARY 3, 1981 LETTER FROM KAWANO TO BERNDT, JULY 10, 1974 LETTER FROM DYSON TO NAKAJIMA, AND MAY 24, 1974 FROM TEVES TO GREGORY

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the brake fluid reservoir requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems. You raised several issues concerning the standard in regard to a brake system you are considering p roducing. The issues raised by your letter are addressed below.

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

The master cylinder reservoir of your proposed brake system can be described as follows. The master cylinder services two brake circuits, Brake Circuit 1 and Brake Circuit 2, and an ancillary unit which itself services Brake Circuits 1 and 2 directly. The total volume (V) of the master cylinder equals V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], where:

V[1] represents the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[1] servicing Brake Circuit 1. The fluid represented by V[1] is not available to Brake Circuit 2 or the ancillary unit.

V[2] refers to the volume of an individual compartment (compartment V[2] servicing Brake Circuit 2. The fluid represented by V[2] is not available to Brake Circuit 1 or the ancillary unit.

The sum of V[3] + V[4] refers to the volume of the portion of the reservoir which provides a common supply to Brake Circuits 1 and 2 and the ancillary unit. V[4] refers to that portion of this volume which is above the level where a fluid level indica tor lamp is activated.

You noted that your proposed brake fluid reservoir design differs from conventional designs in having the exit for the ancillary unit. You stated that you believe your design meets the requirements of sections S5.4.2 and S5.3.1(b), and requested confirm ation of your interpretation.

Section S5.4.2 reads as follows: S5.4.2 Reservoir capacity. Reservoirs, whether for master cylinders or other type systems, shall have a total minimum capacity equivalent to the fluid displacement resulting when all the wheel cylinders or caliper pistons serviced by the reservoirs m ove from a new lining, fully retracted position (as adjusted initially to the manufacturer's recommended setting) to a fully worn, fully applied position, as determined in accordance with S7.18(c) of this standard. Reservoirs shall have completely separa te compartments for each subsystem except that in reservoir systems utilizing a portion of the reservoir for a common supply to two or more subsystems, individual partial compartments shall each have a minimum volume of fluid equal to at least the volume displaced by the master cylinder piston servicing the subsystem, during a full stroke of the piston. . . .

With respect to the requirement expressed in the first sentence of section S5.4.2, you stated that the total volume (V), i.e., the sum of V[1] + V[2] + V[3] + V[4], of your reservoir is "greater or equivalent to fluid displacement resulting when all whee l calipers move from a new lining position to a fully worn lining position." An issue raised by this statement is whether you are correctly calculating the total volume for purposes of section S5.4.2. More specifically, the issue is whether fluid which i s available for use by the ancillary unit, i.e., the fluid represented by V[3] and V[4], can be counted as part of the minimum capacity required by section S5.4.2.

It is our opinion that such fluid can be counted, since, even with the presence of the ancillary unit, the fluid is solely available to the brakes. In an October 9, 1981 interpretation to Toyota (copy enclosed), the agency interpreted section S5.4.2 to require that the minimum fluid capacity requirements be met by fluid which is solely available to the brakes. In that letter, the agency concluded that fluid which was available to both the brakes and the clutch could not be counted, since some or all o f the fluid might be used by the clutch and thus not be available for the brakes. The ancillary unit in your design is not comparable to the clutch, however, since it is part of the brake system and does not use brake fluid for purposes other than for t he brake circuits.

With respect to the requirement expressed in the second sentence of section S5.4.2, your letter indicates that V[1] and V[2] are each greater than or equivalent to the volume displaced by a full stroke of the related master cylinder piston. Given this s tatement, and the fact that compartments V[1] and V[2] are separate compartments such that their fluid is neither available to the other brake circuit or to the ancillary unit, we do not see any particular interpretation question raised by your design fo r this requirement.

For manufacturers choosing to meet Standard No. 105's brake system indicator lamp requirements by means of a fluid level indicator lamp, section S5.3.1(b) requires activation of the lamp under the following condition:

A drop in the level of brake fluid in any master cylinder reservoir compartment to less than the recommended safe level specified by the manufacturer or to one-fourth of the fluid capacity of that reservoir compartment, whichever is greater.

With respect to this requirement, you stated that (V[1] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[1] + V[3] + V[4]), and that (V[2] + V[3]) is greater than or equivalent to one-fourth of (V[2] + V[3] + V[4]). An issue raised by this stat ement is whether you are counting the correct fluid in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b).

The issue of which fluid should be counted in determining the minimum warning level specified in section S5.3.1(b) was addressed in the letter to Toyota, discussed above. As discussed in that letter, the minimum warning level is determined by the fluid capacity of each compartment and not the capacity of the reservoir, unless the manufacturer recommends a higher safe level. In reference to your design, the compartments in question are compartment V[1] and compartment V[2]. Thus the warning level for compartment V[1] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[1]. Similarly, the warning level for compartment V[2] must not be less than 1/4 the capacity of compartment V[2]. This interpretation differs from your stated understanding, and ma y result in a lower minimum warning level. Since there may be safety advantages to higher warning levels, particularly where the capacity of individual compartments is small in relation to the capacity of the reservoir, you may wish to specify a higher warning level such as that indicated in your design.

Enclosure

ID: nht88-3.62

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/04/88

FROM: FRANK J. TRECY -- GENERAL MANAGER - MANUFACTURING MILLER STRUCTURES, INC.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/30/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO FRANK J. TRECY, REDBOOK A33 (4), VSA 102 (3), STANDARD 115; LETTER DATED 11/14/88 FROM F. J. TRECY TO ERIKA Z. JONES, OCC 2811

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

I am writing with regard to an interpretation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, subpart S2, titled: Application.

I called your office and was told it would be better to put my request in writing. After you have reviewed my request, I was told I could expect an interpretation shortly.

Miller Structures, Inc. primarily manufactures offices, storage buildings, classrooms, laboratories, branch banks, medical clinics and other related commercial buildings. The buildings are constructed in widths of 8, 10, 12, and 14 feet, with lengths ranging from 10 to 80 feet. I do not classify them as over-the-road type trailers. A considerable number of our units go to a location, are placed on a foundation and remain there permanently. The remainder are placed on a location for varying length s of time and are then re-located. A good description of our product would be a permanent or relocatable type commercial building.

It has been my interpretation that we are exempt from implementing the VIN identification system. At the present time, we are using a numerical system of serial number identification and once a serial number is used, it is never used again.

The state of South Dakota has issued a directive stating all trailer manufacturers would have to implement the VIN system by January 1, 1989. I spoke with Ms. Deb Hillmer, Deputy Director of the Division of Motor Vehicles, regarding the interpretatio n stated herein. Ms. Hillmer stated that if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concurs with my interpretation, she would accept it.

Therefore, I am requesting an interpretation of this matter from your office. Thanking you in advance, I remain,

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.63

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/88

FROM: J. W. LAWRENCE -- MANAGER COMPLIANCE VOLVO GM HEAVY TRUCK CORP

TO: ERIKA L. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS-124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 03/17/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO LEON STEENBOCK

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corporation, manufacturer of "WHITEGMC" and importer of "VOLVO" trucks 26,000 lbs and greater GVWR, respectfully requests you reconsider and rescind the interpretation of FMVSS-124 issued by the Administration on March 17, 1988. Spe cifically, VolvoGM believes the March 17 statement "locking hand throttle controls are expressly prohibited by Standard 123" should either be rescinded or restated in such a way as to continue to allow installation of the devices described in this reques t.

All VolvoGM trucks available in the United States are diesel powered and do not have automatic low speed limiting devices such as automatic chokes used on gasoline engines. Like most, if not all heavy truck manufacturers, we install a hand throttle to a llow the driver to increase the low speed idle at will for a multitude of reasons. The most common uses of these hand throttle are for engine warmup, extended idle periods (some times in cold weather diesel trucks will not be shutdown for days) and voca tional applications such as pumping, ready mix delivery, compacting, etc. The vocational applications usually occur when the vehicle is stationary, however, there is no lockout device restricting their use to the non "drive" transmission positions. All hand throttles we install are "locking hand throttle controls" in that once set they hold engine idle at a driver selected level until such time as the driver selects a new idle speed or disengaged the throttle.

FMVSS-124 @ 4 Definitions addresses hand throttles.

"Idle position" means the position of the throttle at which it first comes in contact with an engine idle speed control appropriate for existing conditions according to the manufacturers recommendations. These conditions include, but are not limited to, engine speed adjustments for cold engine, air conditioning, and emission control, and the use of throttle setting devices." (emphasis added)

Source: 37FR pg. 20035 September 23, 1972

The throttle setting or hand throttle control provisions of the Standard are in direct response to a Mack Truck petition addressing hand throttles for heavy duty diesel truck. The FR37, No. 186 preamble discussion on page 20033 dated September 23, 19 72 expresses the Administration's intent at the time the Standard was promulgated.

"Mack and Alfa Romeo petitioned that "hand throttles" and throttle positioners be specifically excluded from the definition of "idle position". Petitioners stated that in the event such a device is used a return to the preset throttle position occurs upon release of the driver-operated accelerator control system. This request is granted. If a driver choose to raise the lowest engine speed threshold by the use of a throttle positioning device, the throttle should return to that new position within t he same time requirements specified in section S5.3. Accordingly, the NHTSA is amending the definition of "idle position" to provide for the use of throttle positioners."

The standard has been in effect for 15 years during which time hundreds of thousands of heavy duty diesel trucks have been equipped with these devices apparently with no safety problems. We trust this discussion clears the technical issues and if we may be of assistance are most willing.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.64

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/05/88

FROM: BYUNG M. SOH -- TARGET MARKETING SYSTEMS INC

TO: TAYLOR VINRON -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 03/25/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO BYUNG M. SOH, REDBOOK A33(6); VSA 108(A)2(A); STANDARD 108; STANDARD 211

TEXT: Dear Sir:

We would like to have your opinion on the enclosed Hub Cap, whether it violates any applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

It is structured to meet FMVSS No. 571.211. We, however, feel that incorporation of LED's on the hub cap need to be clarified from your office. As described in our press release, the intensity of the LED is maximum 40mmAmp, and it is designed solely fo r cosmetic purpose, not for illuminating purpose.

Your immediate reply would be appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Enc.: 1. our press release 2. color photo of product in motion

STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap

What is STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Cap?

A Hub Cap that has a self-contained motion activating generator in the core of the Hub Cap, and made of durable, rust-proof, virgin ABS. Maintenance Free and requires NO special tools or knowledge for installation. This innovative concept is patented i n 18 countries including the U.S.A. Requires NO wiring and can be installed/replaced just a easily as replacing a regular Hub Cap.

How will STARRACE Self-Lighting Hub Cap Work?

STARRACE has 14 LED lights aligned on a linear plane of a hub cap diameter, and self-motion activation generator which could generate a minimum 20 to a maximum 40 mmAmps/LED's depending on the RPM's. Intensity of the LED lights proportionate to the spee d of the vehicle, as it triggers ON/OFF automatically by motion.

Target Market of the STARRACE Self-lighting Hub Caps?

According to our survey, major demographic target market falls in those ages between 18 to 35, male and female, nationwide: People who spend a considerable amount of money for automotive accessories should be a primary target group. The secondary target group could be those who drive major or rural highways daily. An excellent Safety device by enhancing visibility to other driver in addition to its unique cosmetic purpose. Another substantial potential market is a segment of car owners who like to dec orate their cars to distinguish them from others. STARRACE will certainly satisfy ego's of those sectors.

ID: nht88-3.65

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 7, 1988

FROM: George T. Miller -- Child Riding Inc.

TO: Erika Jones -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Childing Riding, Inc.

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-13-90 from P.J. Rice to R.J. Sullivan (A36; Std. 213); Also attached to letter dated 10-23-89 from R.J. Sullivan to D. Fujita (OCC 4098)

TEXT:

NHTSA held a public meeting in Washington on August 9, 1988. My presentation at the meeting was limited to a discussion of built-in restraints. I expressed concern that a super-technical construction of the new regulations might serve to deny the publi c access to this new technology.

After the meeting I spoke with Ms. Joan Tillman. She recognized my concern. However, she stated that it was not the intention of NHTSA to be super-technical in its interpretation of Standard 213. However, she made it clear that a formal interpretation of Standard 213 can be made only in response to written inquiry directed to your attention.

On January 22, 1988 Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 213, CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEMS, was amended to permit installing built-in child restraint systems in passenger cars.

The stated purpose of the Agency was to amend 213 "only to the extent necessary to accommodate built-in restraints. In those instances where specifications would not accommodate built-in restraints, the Agency proposed creating a separate requirement fo r each kind of restraint" (see Fed. Reg. Vol. 53, No. 14 pg. 1783).

Accordingly, S4 of CFR 571.213 was amended in part, as follows:

(a) "Built-in child restraint system" means any child restraint system which is an integral part of a passenger car.

"Specific vehicle shell" means the actual vehicle model part intowhich the built-in child restraint system is fabricated, (Emphasis Added) including the complete surroundings of the built-in system. If the built-in child restraint system is manu factured as part of the rear seat, these surroundings, include the back of the front seat, the interior rear side door panels and trim, the rear seat, the floor pan, the B and C pillars, and the ceiling.

In addition, S7.3 of 49 CFR 571.213 was revised to read as follows:

S7.3 Standard test device.

(b) The standard test devices used in testing built-in child restraint systems under this standard are either a specific vehicle shell or a specific vehicle. (Emphasis Added).

We are prepared to test our built-in child restraint system in a specific vehicle shell or a specific vehicle.

We would expect to successfully test the built-in restraint in your standard small, medium and large size vehicles before offering it to the general public.

This approach would seem to be consistent with the stated purpose of NHTSA. This will mean that your typical young family (who may not be able to afford a new vehicle) can now avail itself of the convenience and safety offered through use of a built-in restraint.

However, we do have a major concern. If NHTSA makes a super-technical interpretation of Standard 213; then it could require that the built-in restraint be tested in each and every vehicle before the restraint could be properly used in any particular mod el. For example, using such reasoning, NHTSA could require that the manufacturer crash test a 1977 Ford before permitting a sale of the restraint to the owners of 1977 Fords.

I would appreciate it if I could have official confirmation from NHTSA that no such requirement was intended. I would also hope the NHTSA could publish some guide-lines on this problem.

Please understand that, absent such guidelines, the manufacturers of built-in restraints unnecessarily risk considerable financial exposure.

I plan to be in Washington next week and I would like to take the opportunity to show you the completed and installed prototype of our new seat.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter

ID: nht88-3.66

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/10/88

FROM: JODY JOHNSON -- IOWA VEHICLE REGISTRATION MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION

TO: DANIEL F. WIECHMANN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/05/89 FROM JEFFREY R. MILLER -- NHTSA TO FRED GRANDY, REDBOOK A33 (3); STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 05/09/89 FROM FRED GRANDY -- CONGRESS TO JERRY CURRY -- NHTSA; LETTER DATED 05/05/89 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO ROBER T A. DETERMAN, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH; LETTER DATED 09/23/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RUTH SKLUZACEEK, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO. WD488435; NO 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA; LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM DANIEL F. WIECHMANN TO RALPH HITCHCOCK -- NHTSA, RE THE STATE OF IOWA VS. BARRY LYNN SPEICH, FRANKLIN COUNTY CRIMINAL NO WD488435; NO. 24.432.0788 [321.424] OF THE CODE OF IOWA

TEXT: Dear Mr. Wiechmann:

Thank you for your letter inquiring on Iowa requirements pertaining to lighting requirements.

The department specifically does not approve head lamp covers. The reason for this is Iowa administrative rule chapter 450, 761 -- 450.1(321) adopts Federal Standards on equipment approval which implements Iowa Code section 321.424.

If the headlamp covers in question meet the Federal Standards they would qualify under Iowa law.

May I suggest contacting the following address to see if the headlamp covers in question comply with the Federal Standards.:

Mr. Ralph Hitchcock

U.S. Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Standards

NRM-10

400 7th Street SW

Washington, D.C.

Phone: 202-366-0842

Mr. Hitchcock should be able to supply you with the information needed.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/13/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: PAUL UTANS -- VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SUBARU OF AMERICA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 08/11/88 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM PAUL UTANS, OCC - 2405; LETTER DATED 12/01/86 TO FRANCOIS LOUIS FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, STANDARD 208; LETTER DATED 08/18/78 TO D. BLACK FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN, STANDARD 210, RE NOA 30

TEXT: Dear Mr. Utans:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR S571.210). Specifically, you stated that Subaru would like to offer lap/shoulder belts at the rear outboard seating positions on mid-1989 mode l year station wagons sold in the United States. Standard No. 210 requires these station wagons to be equipped with an anchorage for the upper end of the upper torso portion of a lap/shoulder belt assembly at each forward-facing outboard seating position (S4.1.1) and requires such anchorages to be located within a specified range (S4.3.2). You stated that the station wagons would have a complying anchorage located in the specified area.

However, the upper torso portion of the lap/shoulder belt assemblies would not be attached to the required anchorages in the vehicles. Instead, Subaru would provide another anchorage outside of the range specified in Standard No. 210, and the upper tors o portion of the rear seat lap/shoulder belt assemblies would be attached to these additional anchorages. You stated your belief that, since Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR S571.208) does not require manufacturers to install lap/shou lder belts in rear seating positions of passenger cars, Subaru's voluntary installation of rear seat lap/shoulder belts and additional anchorages for those belts is not subject to any of this agency's regulations, provided that the voluntarily installed items do not impair the functioning of any devices or elements of design required to be installed in the vehicles. Your belief is correct.

The anchorage location requirements in Standard No. 210 apply to all anchorages required by the safety standards, except for those anchorages explicitly exempted by S4.3 of Standard No. 210 (anchorages for automatic and dynamically tested manual belt ass emblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208). The question then becomes whether the voluntarily provided rear seat shoulder belts must be attached in these vehicles to the anchorage that is required by the

safety standards. As discussed below, we conclude that a voluntarily provided lap/shoulder belt may be attached to an anchorage located outside the area specified by Standard No. 210.

S3 of Standard No. 210 defines a "seat belt anchorage" as "the provision for transferring seat belt assembly loads to the vehicle structure." S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires shoulder belt anchorages to be installed for each forward-facing rear outboa rd seating position in passenger cars. This requirement has been interpreted as meaning that an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure had to be provided for such seating positions, and that required anchora ge point had to comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 210.

According to your letter, your station wagons would be equipped with an anchorage point capable of transferring shoulder belt loads to the vehicle structure, and that point would comply with the anchorage strength and location requirements set forth in S tandard No. 210. Thus, Subaru could satisfy all the requirements of the safety standards by installing lap belts only at the rear outboard seating positions in these cars. Subaru's decision to install lap/shoulder belts at these seating positions and a n additional anchorage point for the shoulder belts is a voluntary choice, not a response to any regulatory requirement.

NHTSA has long said that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to comply with Federal safety standards, provided that the additional systems or components do not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the safety standards. In a December 1, 1986 letter to Mr. Francois Louis (copy enclosed), I said that manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for voluntarily-installed lap belts outside of the area specified in Standa rd No. 210 for lap belts required to be installed by Standard No. 208, provided that the voluntarily installed lap belts do not destroy the ability of the required belt systems to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. The same reasoning would apply in this situation. That is, manufacturers are permitted to locate the anchorage for the upper end of voluntarily installed shoulder belts outside of the area specified in S4.3.2 of Standard No. 210, provided that the voluntarily installed an chorages and shoulder belts do not destroy the ability of the required anchorages and lap belts to comply with the requirements of the safety standards. There is no reason to believe that shoulder belts and the additional anchorages would in any way imp air the ability of required equipment to comply with the requirements of the safety standards.

You are already aware of the fact that NHTSA has initiated a rulemaking to require rear seat lap/shoulder belts; 52 FR 22818, June 16, 1987. You should note that if the agency adopts a final rule requiring rear seat lap/shoulder belts in passenger cars, this interpretation would no longer apply, because it relies on the voluntary nature of the installation.

ENCLOSURE

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.68

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM E. LAWLER -- SPECIFICATIONS MANAGER INDIANA MILLS & MANUFACTURING, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 09/17/87 TO ERIKA Z. JONES FROM WILLIAM E. LAWLER, OCC - 1043

TEXT: Dear Mr. Lawler:

This responds to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @ 571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

Specifically, you asked about a safety belt installation at the driver's seat of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds. A customer of yours designed a lap/shoulder belt system with a continuous webbing feature and with a floor-mounted automatic locking retractor (ALR) for the belt system. Your company was concerned that this proposed design would not comply with the requirements of S4.3(i) and S5.2(i) of Standard No. 209, which limit the extent to which ALR's can move between locking positions and the retraction force that can be exerted by ALR's. Additionally, your letter stated that sections S4.1.2.3, S4.2.2, and S7.1 of Standard No. 208, "though dealing with lighter vehicles, seem to imply the intent of minimal u pper torso restriction."

To address these concerns, you made two modifications to the customer's proposed design. The first modification was to sew the latchplate to the webbing to convert the continuous webbing into a separate lap belt and upper torso restraint. The second mo dification was to place a manual adjusting device on the upper torso restraint. You asked for an opinion on these modifications.

The requirements for safety belts on vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1990, with a gross vehicle weight rating in excess of 10,000 pounds are set forth in section S4.3.1 of Standard No. 208 for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles and in s ection S4.4.1 for buses. Both of these sections require that the driver's seating position in heavy vehicles be equipped with a complete automatic protection system or with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209. The re quirements for safety belts on heavy vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990 are set forth in section S4.3.2 of Standard No. 208

for trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles and in section S4.4.1 for buses. These heavy vehicles must either have a complete automatic protection system at the driver's seating position or be equipped with a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt assembly t hat conforms to Standard No. 209, S7.2 of Standard No. 208, and include either an emergency locking retractor or an automatic locking retractor that satisfies some additional performance requirements.

Your customer has chosen to comply with Standard No. 208 by installing a belt system at the driver's seating position. Therefore, the vehicles in question would comply with the applicable requirements of Standard No. 208 if the belt assembly complies wi th the requirements of S4.3.1 or S4.4.1, if the vehicles are manufactured before September 1, 1990, or with the requirements of S4.3.2 or S4.4.2, if the vehicles are manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Your letter does not provide sufficient inf ormation for us to offer any opinion on whether your customer's design or your design would comply with S4.3(i) and S5.2(i) of Standard No. 209. If both comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209, either may be installed at the driver's seating position in vehicles manufactured before September 1, 1990. If both comply with all applicable requirements of Standard No. 209 and the additional requirements set forth in S4.3.2 and S4.4.2 of Standard No. 208, either may be installed at the d river's seating position in vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1990.

You also referred to an implied agency intent of minimal upper torso restriction by the belt assemblies in heavy vehicles. When the agency promulgates a safety standard specifying performance requirements for vehicles or items of equipment to accomplish a particular safety purpose, that safety standard sets forth all requirements with which the vehicles or equipment must comply regarding that purpose. If those requirements do not fully address or ensure the implementation of some aspect of that purpos e, then to that extent, that aspect is not part of the standard, even if NHTSA intended it to be part of the standard. Any aspect of performance that is not set forth in the requirements of the standard is, therefore, not relevant to determining whether the vehicles or equipment comply with the performance requirements that are set forth in the standard.

We certainly appreciate your efforts to design a comfortable lap/shoulder belt system for these vehicles, because more comfortable belt systems should increase belt use. Increased use, in turn, helps prevent deaths and/or serious injuries.

Sincerely,

ID: nht88-3.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: N. BOWYER -- SENIOR ENGINEER HOMOLOGATION AND LEGISLATION LAND ROVER UK LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM N. BOWYER TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1909; LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM D. BRUCE HENDERSON TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC-1908

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 199 1. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that t he labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that al so comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This secti on contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicl e. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehic le combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of S tandard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898 , at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for t hese dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those bel t systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly

true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which i t would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of St andard No. 209.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our re view of it.

ID: nht88-3.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/16/88

FROM: RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS INC

TO: ROBERT KNAUFF DESIGN

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/24/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA ROBERT KNAUFF; REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 108; LETTER DATED 06/08/89 FROM ROBERT J. KNAUFF -- APPLIED RESEARCH AND DESIGN INC TO KATHLEEN DEMETER -- DOT; LETTER DATED 12/07/87 FROM RICHARD H. SCHULTZ -- AMERICAN PULSE LIGHTS TO ROBERT J. KNAUFF

TEXT: Dear Mr. Knauff:

This is an evaluation of your school bus rear warning lamp demonstration with a pop-flash option.

I initially expected that we would have a problem with high intensity flash washing out the red lens and appearing white. Technically this is what happens and if you concentrate on it, the flash can appear white. The flash duration however was so brief and when used in concert with red in the cycle did not appear white to me. That should clear one obstacle, as white is prohibited in this type of lamp. Dual day/night intensity should not be necessary as long as you stick with red lamps.

You should also not have to restrict the pop to less than every flash, but in any case you will have to locate the discharge bulb so that the parabolic reflector and lens of the host lamp project the energy at very nearly about the H-Y point. Any large amount that occurs down at a level so as to be observed by a passenger car operator less than, let us approximate, 200 feet away would probably be objectionable to some, depending upon a number of factors that I need not go into at this point.

Generally, we have a basic concept that a signal is either required or not permitted. This keeps messages clear between vehicle operators. In this case however, I believe that we can consider this option since it is only an appendage modification of an existing warning system.

When you clear this modification with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration compliance office and with the Minnesota Department of Education student transportation office, we would need to have a look at the finished product and your test da ta for purposes of commissioner's authorization or commissioner's approval certification depending upon the marketing approach that is possible and that you wish to take.

Sincerely,