ID: nht90-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: APRIL 24, 1990

FROM: JERRY RALPH CURRY

TO: D. H. BURNEY -- AMBASSADOR OF CANADA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 3-16-90 TO JERRY R. CURRY, NHTSA, FROM D. H. BURNEY, AMBASSADOR OF CANADA TEXT:

Thank you for your letter of March 16, 1990, expressing the concern of your country about this agency's new regulations on importation of motor vehicles and equipment.

Canada is concerned that, under P.L. 100-562, the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, Canadian vehicle brokers, dealers, and private citizens will not, for all practical purposes, be able to export new or used Canadian market vehicles to the United States. It is concerned further that Canadian individuals and firms will be precluded from providing conformance goods and services for vehicles exported to the United States. Canada therefore requests that this agency modify its regulations wit h respect to Canadian market vehicles, recognizing their near-compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and accommodating their entry in the least costly and burdensome manner. You have five specific requests, and I shall address each.

Preliminarily, I want to note several things. First, my assurance that this agency gave very careful consideration to the concerns of Transport Canada in adopting final regulations under the 1988 Act, as well as those expressed by Canadian companies tha t commented on the proposed regulations. As we noted in the notices proposing and adopting those regulations, our discretion to make changes in the regulations was narrowly circumscribed in many instances by the detailed language of that Act. On a more technical level, I want to note that your understanding of our new regulations expressed in paragraphs (a) through (g) on page 2 of your letter is essentially correct. However, with respect to your paragraph (d), please note that determinations of vehi cle eligibility for importation may also be made by me as Administrator on my own initiative, and need not be pursuant to a petition. Also, as to paragraph (e), I would like to point out that the bond processing fee, proposed to be *$125, is only $4.35 (however, under paragraph (f) the bond is not less than 150 percent of the dutiable value of the vehicle).

Your first request is that the agency "recognize Canadian market vehicles as a special class of non-complying vehicles requiring only minor changes to meet the FMVSS." The 1988 Act was enacted on October 31, 1988, and became effective January 31, 1990. I regret to say that none of its provisions authorize the agency to directly distinguish between non-complying vehicles of Canadian manufacture and those originating in other countries.

However, the eligibility provisions that you reference in paragraph (d) do permit a basis for minimizing some of the burden that the 1988 Act imposes. We begin with the premise that if a Canadian vehicle has not been certified by its manufacturer as in conformance with U.S. standards, then it cannot be presumed to conform in all respects to the U.S. standards. Canadian and U.S. safety standards do differ in some ways (e.g., mandatory automatic crash protection for U.S. market passenger cars manufactur ed on and after September 1, 1989). Nevertheless, we believe that enough similarity may exist to support a finding that a Canadian passenger car is "substantially similar" to a U.S. passenger car, justifying a determination that it is eligible for impor tation into the United States, and capable of conversion to meet U.S. safety standards. Further, such a finding may be made on our own initiative. I am pleased to inform you that NHTSA is publishing a notice of tentative determination that would cover a ll passenger cars certified as meeting the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, and that were manufactured up to September 1, 1989. A copy of the notice is enclosed for your reference. After receiving and considering public comment, we will make a final decision on this matter. If we decide to adopt our tentative determination as a final determination, your first request would, in effect, be granted.

Your second request is that we "exempt such vehicles from the fees." These fees are the ones mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of your letter, the registered importer annual registration fee, the vehicle eligibility petition fee, and the bond pro cessing fee. Each fee is specifically required by the 1988 Act, and must be established in advance of the fiscal year in which it is effective. The registered importer fee is required to cover agency costs for administration of the registration program . The vehicle eligibility fee is required to cover the agency's costs in making and publishing eligibility determinations. The bond processing fee is required to reimburse the U.S. Customs Service for its costs in processing the agency's conformance bo nd that accompanies each nonconforming vehicle. Congress provided no authority to waive these fees, or to modify them during the fiscal year that they are in effect. Thus, the fees that have been established must remain in effect until October 1, 1990.

When we begin the review that will lead to next year's fees, we shall be happy to consider whether some provision may be made for Canadian market vehicles. In the meantime, I would like to point out that under our notice of tentative determination on el igibility of Canadian vehicles, the fee of $1,560 would cover the blanket determination of all passenger cars, and would not be applied to each individual model and model year of passenger car. This action would effectively moot Canada's second request that Canadian market passenger cars be exempted from the determination fee.

Canada's third request is to "exempt them from the bonding requirement." The 1988 Act requires the importer of a non-conforming vehicle to furnish an appropriate bond to ensure that the vehicle will be brought into compliance, or will be exported or aban doned to the United States. This is not a new requirement; ever since January 1, 1968, each nonconforming vehicle, Canadian or otherwise, has been required to be accompanied by a conformance bond upon its entry into the United States. The 1988 Act prov ides us with no authority to exempt Canadian vehicles, and does not distinguish degrees of nonconformity. Therefore, we believe that we are unable to grant Canada's request, absent specific authorization by the U.S. Congress.

The fourth request is to "exempt them from the requirement that they be imported by registered importers, who must be U.S. citizens." This request raises two issues: whether Canadian market cars may be imported by persons other than registered importers , and whether registered importers must be U.S. citizens. As to the first issue, the 1988 Act does allow one alternative to direct importation by a registered importer. That is, a person other than a registered importer may import a nonconforming vehicl e if he has a contract with a registered importer to perform conformance work. This would allow a Canadian citizen to import a Canadian market car, without himself becoming a registered importer.

The second issue is whether a Canadian company is permitted to be a registered importer. We believe that a registered importer is a person who is physically present in the territory in which importation occurs, as opposed to an exporter, who is outside t hat territory. While we are not conversant with the laws of the individual States, we believe that a Canadian company could qualify to do business within an individual State, and become a registered importer. Thus, it is not necessary to be a U.S. "citiz en", but it is necessary to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The 1988 Act requires the registered importer regulation to contain requirements for recordkeeping, and inspection of records and facilities. Since the jurisdiction of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not extend beyond the boundaries of the United States, we believe that it would be difficult to enforce our provisions on inspection of premises, documents, etc. in the territory of another country.

This brings us to your fifth and final request, that we "allow modifications to be done in either the United States or Canada." Under current regulations, conformance work is permitted to be performed outside the united States. However, vehicles modifi ed in this fashion must be admitted under the same procedures as if they had not been modified. This allows the agency to review the documents on pre-importation conversion work, to ensure that it has been satis- factorily accomplished, before the confo rmance bond is released. Accordingly, we believe that the concern underlying this request has already been accommodated.

If, after reviewing this letter, you have further suggestions for reducing the burdens that the new law may have imposed on importations of Canadian-manufactured vehicles, I would be happy to consider them.

Enclosure

ID: nht87-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/24/87

FROM: DIETMAR K. HAENCHEN -- VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 205

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11/03/88 FROM ERIKA Z JONES TO DIETMAR K HAENCHEN; REDBOOK A32 (2), STANDARD 205

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

The design of passenger cars has changed in recent years to reduce aerodynamic drag and increase fuel efficiency. Volkswagen is planning to improve interior comfort and reduce energy consumption in future car models by introducing selected areas with re duced energy transmission via ceramic dots on the car's glazing. The reduced energy radiation into the interior increases driver's and passenger's comfort and results in increased active safety. We believe that the application of shaded areas on the wi ndows complies with the applicable safety standards. Different methods exist for shading those areas; the glass may be tinted like shade bands applied to windshields, or small ceramic dots can be applied on the glass surface having the same effect on th e reduction of energy transmission. The sections of glass selected for the application of the ceramic paint could, if not for styling aesthetics, be covered with sheet metal in order to avoid questions of interpretation of FMVSS 205. However, the styli ng incentive is compelling and driver visibility with the proposed configuration is better than total blockage with sheet metal, which would clearly be allowable. We are, therefore, seeking the agency's opinion of this concept which we are considering fo r the next new model line. While the agency does not give advance approval of specific product designs, the agency's opinion of whether the configuration proposed herein appears to comply with the applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards will a id manufacturers in determining whether the numerous variations of the concept applied to various vehicles will comply with the standards.

Volkswagen has reviewed Standard 205 which in turn refers to ANS z26.1 (1980) which establishes requirements for safety glazing material for use in passenger cars. In Section 4.2 of ANS z26.1, specifications for items 1 and 2 glazing which VW intends to apply to the windshield and side/rear glass respectively refer to footnotes 1 and 3 when specifying Test 2 - Light Transmittance. Those footnotes allow areas of the glazing to have less than 70% light transmittance if the areas are not within the "leve ls required for driving visibility".

The term "levels requisite for driving visibility" has been used by the agency in interpretations and on several occasions has been addressed more precisely such as the interpretation to Mr. G. Nield on 15 February, 1974 as follows: "We (the agency) cons ider the word 'levels' in Standard 205 to mean vertical heights in relation to driver's eyes." To our knowledge the agency has not gone beyond the above interpretation in further defining "levels requisite for driving visibility".

In order to comply with FMVSS 205 Volkswagen deems it appropriate to use engineering judgement, applicable standards and technical recommendations to define these "levels" so that driving visibility is properly maintained with the installation of glazing material having areas within a single sheet of less than 70% light transmittance.

Footnote 1 of ANS z26.1 - 1980, although not expressively stated, refers mainly to shade bands and has been so construed and treated by the industry. The automobile industry so far has determined which areas are "requisite for driving visibility" and ha s marked the shaded areas as required. In these cases the industry determined how far shade bands can extend donward from the upper edge of the window and still be in compliance with FMVSS 205.

SAE J100 (passenger car glazing shade bands) also refers to ANS z26.1 when defining "glazing shade band" as "an area of the vehicle glazing through which light transmission is less than required for use at levels requisite for driving visibility by USAS z26.1". The SAE recommends shade bands above the 95th eyellipse only, but acknowledged at that time that substantial research to establish the driver's field of view did not exist. Volkswagen also believes that these data do not exist currently.

Guidelines for a determination of "levels" which extend upward from the bottom edge of the vehicle glazing are addressed in Directive 77/649 as amended in 81/643 of the European Economic Community (EEC). The directive specifies levels requisite for driv ing visibility in the driver's 180 degrees forward direct field of vision. Section 5.1.3 specifies the boundaries for the driver's forward direct field of vision by a horizontal plane through V[1] (upper boundary) and by three planes at downward angles of 4 degrees through V[2] (lower boundary). The latter describes the minimum field of view for small persons through the lower portion of the glazing.

The EEC in its effort to set angular limits for the driver's forward direct field of vision used anthropometric data of horizontal head and eye movement to arrive at the 180 degrees limit. The SAE in its information report J985 arrives at the same figur e when the angles of "maximum head movement (is) 60 degrees left and 60 degrees right" and "the eyes can turn 30 degrees to the right in one rapid, smooth movement", are combined.

For the rear visibility in the U.S., the "levels requisite for driving visibility" are not specified if a passenger side rearview mirror is used according to FMVSS 111. Technically, the complete rear glazing can be blocked by a vehicle manufacturer if a passenger side rearview mirror is installed as standard equipment. Volkswagen intends to install a passenger side outside mirror as standard equipment in conjunction with the subject shading configuration and also to provide an area in the rear glazing with transmissability of greater than 70%.

With this background, Volkswagen is planning to include either tinted bands or ceramic dots on glazing as described in Attachments I and II. Volkswagen believes that this concept clearly allows light transmittance in excess of 70% in the areas requisite for driving visibility and consequently should adequately satisfy the safety needs for overall driving visibility.

Volkswagen has tested these boundaries according to the specifications of 77/649/EEC and concluded that ceramic dots in the area defined in 5.1.3 very well cover the vertical heights in relation to even small driver's eyes, which are "requisite for drivi ng visibility". In addition we have designated the area adjacent to the right and left hand outside mirrors as requisite for driving visibility.

This proposal has been approved by the German government (KBA) as recommended by the Technical Service Hannover. This approval was based on the fact that it complies with the driver's direct field of view (forward 180 degrees) and that unobstructed outs ide rearview mirrors are used on both sides to supplement the inside rearview mirror for the driver's indirect field of view. This approval is based on compliance with the applicable EEC Directive and therefore will likely be acceptable to all Common Ma rket countries.

Volkswagen requests the agency's opinion of this proposal and an interpretation of whether the markings described in Section 6 of ANS z26.1 would be required to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with the 70% transmittance requirement . If required, Section 6 states that the glazing "shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area that is intended to comply with Test No. 2" (70% transmissability). Interpretation is requested of where these markings should be placed for the configurations shown in Attachments I and II if they are required. Since this is under consideration for the next model year, a timely response is requested.

ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT I

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% and 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% , 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ATTACHMENT II

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 82% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 82%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit 30% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE 30%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 75% und 77% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 75% AND 77%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit von 30% > 70% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE FROM 30% TO 70%

Lichtdurchlassigkeit zwischen 72% und 75% LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE BETWEEN 72% AND 75%

Warmeschutzverglasung HEAT ABSORBING GLASS

E/KK - AA 87.01.

ID: nht88-2.10

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/29/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Derek Nash -- Artech Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 1/14/76 letter from Richard B. Dyson To Tom Welland

TEXT:

Mr. Derek Nash Artech Corporation 2901 Telestar Court Falls Church, VA 22042

This responds to your letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and follows up on the April 1, 1988 telephone conversation with Ms. Hom of my staff in which additional information augmenting your letter was provided. I apologiz e for the delay in responding.

In your letter, you said that you are refurbishing a type of passenger vehicle that has first produced 20 years ago. Your letter raises questions about Federal requirements for persons modifying used vehicles which I will address in the latter part of th is letter and about Federal requirements for the design of the vehicle's chassis.

Before I address your specific questions, I would like to provide some background information on our regulations and safety standards. NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (copy enclosed) to issue motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of new vehicles or equipment must certify that their products conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA also has the authority to in vestigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. If a manufacturer or the agency determines that the manufacturer's product contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the product and remedy the defect free of charge.

It is not clear from the information which you have provided us whether the vehicle you are refurbishing would be treated as a new or used vehicle under the Safety Act. A vehicle with a new body and new chassis would be a new vehicle required to meet the standards in effect on the day that manufacture of the vehicle is completed. A vehicle with a new body and old chassis would be a used vehicle.

Section 108(a) (2) (A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, dealers, distributors and motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., persons holding themselves out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a new or used motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This means that any person in the above categories m odifying a new or used vehicle must do so in a manner that ensures the continued compliance of the vehicle with applicable safety standards. This prohibition affects vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, the date on which the first Federal s afety standards became effective. For instance, a commercial business that installs a new fuel system in a passenger car manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 (the effective date of Standard No. 301) must ensure that the new system at least meets the level of safety performance required of the fuel system originally installed on the vehicle. Persons violating section 108 are subject to potential civil penalties of $1,000 per violation.

In instances in which a new vehicle body is installed on an old chassis, section 108(a) (2) (A) requires that the reassembled vehicle meet the Federal safety standards that had been in effect on the date of manufacture of the vehicle. I have enclosed a c opy of a January 14, 1976 letter to Mr. Tom Welland that describes generally the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards to refurbished motor vehicles. Please note that the first situation referred to in the Welland letter addresses the m odification of a vehicle by its owner. The prohibition in section 108(a) (2) (A) does not apply to the modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

I will now address the questions you expressly posed in your letter. Your first three questions asked:

What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of a passenger-carrying motor vehicle?

What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger-carrying motor vehicle chassis?

What form or test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

As Ms. Hom informed you, our safety standards apply to new vehicles and are performance-oriented. NHTSA has not issued any design specifications that directly establish minimum static or dynamic loads for vehicle chassis. These design parameters are esta blished by the manufacturer independently of specific criteria set by the agency and might be available from the original manufacturer of the vehicle you are refurbishing. However, manufacturers of new vehicles are required by NHTSA to determine and spec ify the gross vehicle and axle weight ratings of their vehicles in the manner set forth in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567 of our regulations. I have enclosed a copy of Part 567 for your information.

Chassis manufacturers must be aware, however, of the following two considerations relating to the static and dynamic load capacities of vehicles and NHTSA's regulations. First, because manufacturers of new vehicles must certify that their vehicles hill p erform to the requirements of all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, manufacturers must ensure that chassis design is compatible with the vehicle' s ability to comply. Some of our safety standards specify that the performance of requisite vehicle safety systems will be evaluated in dynamic (i.e., crash) tests which enable the agency to evaluate the synergistic effect of a range of variables on a vehicle's compliance therewith. Manufacturers of new vehicles would therefore have to ensure that the design of the chassis will have no negative effect on their vehicle's compliance with applicable safety standards.

Second, as mentioned above, NHTSA has the authority to investigate safety-related defects in motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and to require manufacturers to recall and remedy such defects free of charge. Chassis manufacturers must therefore en sure that their products contain no safety related defects, which might well include a chassis member that is incapable of carrying loads for which it is intended.

Further, the vehicle manufacturer who provides the GVWR and GAWR information required by Part 567 must ensure that the information relating to the chassis static loads is correct.

On a separate matter, your letter also asked about the requirements manufacturers must meet when installing a plastic fuel tank in a motor vehicle. The standard we issued for vehicle fuel system integrity (No. 301) sets performance requirements for fuel systems in new motor vehicles. As with all our safety standards, Standard No. 301 (copy enclosed) specifies the test that the agency will use to evaluate the performance of the requisite safety system (e.g. the fuel system) on new vehicles selected for i nclusion in its compliance test program. Manufacturers are not bound, however, to use the tests specified in the safety standards for evaluating the compliance of their vehicles or equipment with our standards. Instead, a manufactures may test in any man ner it chooses, so long as it can show that it has exercised due care in ensuring that its vehicles or items of equipment comply with the applicable Federal requirements.

In addition to the materials described above, I have also enclosed information that provides an overview of Federal requirements applying to manufacturers of new motor vehicles and instructions on how you can obtain copies of NHTSA regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact my office if you have further questions.

Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures omitted.

Ref: Passenger vehicle design parameters

Dear Erika:

In accordance with our telephone conversation I have listed some specific questions the have a direct bearing on an ongoing project. Our purpose is to produce a specification for refurbishment of a type of passenger vehicle that was first produced twenty years ago. Our request is for either direct answers to the questions below and/or references to available publications or regulations that are the authorities for the answer.

The questions are as follows:

1. What relationship between allowable stresses in chassis members and the strength of the material is required (or customary) in the design of passenger carrying motor vehicle?

2. What relationship between static and dynamic load is required (or customary) in design assumptions for a passenger carrying motor vehicle chassis?

3. What form of test or measurement is required (or customary) to confirm the results of the calculations?

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2) September 3, 1987

4. What data on characteristics and/or tests of a plastic fuel tank are required for approval of its use in a passenger carrying vehicle?

I thank you for your time and effort in supplying this information and hope to hear from you shortly.

In appreciation

ARTECH CORP.

Derek Nash Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht88-2.88

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/08/88 EST

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

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

TITLE: NONE

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

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

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

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

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

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

P2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you find this information helpful.

ID: 09-003935 217

ID: 07-003334as

ID: 07-007541as

ID: 11-002613 drn.doc

ID: nht74-2.36

DATE: 05/06/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Questor Juvenile Products Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 9, 1974, petition to substitute the proposed performance requirements for child harness testing under Standard No. 213, Child seating systems, for the performance requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies, to which Questor's Model 275 child harness is presently subject. As reasons for the substitution, you cite the inappropriateness of attachment hardware requirements (S4.3(c)) and the configuration of the test device (Figure 7) of Standard No. 209 as well as the desirability of testing to dynamic performance requirements which may become a part of Standard No. 213.

The Standard No. 213 dynamic test values which you recommend are only proposals at this time. Interested parties have not had a full opportunity to comment on them and the NHTSA has not, of course, had the opportunity to fully evaluate them. For these reasons your petition to substitute these new dynamic tests for the Standard No. 209 static tests is denied.

You state that testing of the Model 275 to the assembly performance requirements of Standard No. 209 (S4.4(c)) is complicated by the configuration of the test device for Type III harnesses, which is not suited to test a child harness such as the Questor No. 275 that utilizes the adult front lap belts and the rear adult lap belt or the package shelf as attachment points.

Paragraph S5.3(c)(2) of Standard No. 209 directs that in such a case "attachment shall be . . . in accordance with the [manufacturer's] installation instructions". As adherence to Model 275 installation instructions requires a front and rear adult belt installation (and in some cases a package shelf) the use of an actual vehicle bench seat in a passenger car would be an appropriate method to evaluate the assembly under S4.4(c) of Standard No. 209. Moreover, because the 12-inch extension requirement for an assembly tested under S4.4(c) is based on zero deflection of the test device, the actual vehicle seat should be modified to eliminate deflection.

The NHTSA has previously determined that the requirements of S4.3(c) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to bolts used to secure an adult upper torso restraint, other than the continuous loop type. Similarly, we interpret this provision not apply to the child harness upper torso restraint described in your letter. The bolts would be regulated with respect to strength only by the assembly performance requirements of S4.4(c).

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

April 9, 1974

Richard B. Dyson -- Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dear Mr. Dyson:

Questor Corporation has recently developed a novel child restraint harness that is to be marketed under the brand name "Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness." This restraint system has been under development for over two years to provide maximum dynamic performance at least possible cost to the consumer.

The Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness has closely approached the dynamic performance objectives proposed by the DOT to be effective September 1, 1975. When tested with a standard Sierra three-year-old child dummy, this restraint limited head excursion to 18.8 inches in a 30 mph frontal barrier impact test. Additional improvements in design have been made which will further reduce head excursion.

The unique design characteristics of this harness, which provide exceptional dynamic performance, also present difficulties in determining its compliance with FMVSS 209 for Type 3 seat belt assemblies. These problems were discussed with Messrs. R. Jasinski, J. Gilkey, T. Herlihy, and M. Peskoe during a personal visit to Washington on April 4. Mr. Jasinski also reviewed the situation in a phone conversation with Mr. R. Hitchcock. It was suggested after these conversations that this letter be written to you, outlining the areas of concern relative to FMVSS 209.

The design of Infanseat Model 275 Child Restraint Harness departs radically from child harnesses commercially available to date. Current harnesses require mounting to the floor of the automobile to restrain the child and vehicle seat back from movement during impact or load. Inasmuch as this floor anchorage could inadvertently be used by the present automobile owner or subsequent owners for an adult lap belt attachment point, it is understandable that FMVSS 209 would require the strength of this anchorage to be no less than 5,000 pounds, paragraph S4.3 (c) (1).

It is further recognized that currently available child harnesses loop over the adult backrest of automobiles, prior to being themselves anchored to the vehicle floor, and thus largely rely upon the strength of the automobile backrest to reduce movement of the child in an accident situation and/or also restrain the backrest. The assembly performance criteria of FMVSS 209 paragraphs S5.3 (c) (1) through (4) provide some degree of simulating this installation, and yet the force requirement that the complete assembly is required to withstand is 2,000 pounds, 100 per cent greater than the force requirements of FMVSS 213.

The Model 275 Child Harness is shown in accompanying Figures 1 and 2. The significant differences in its installation when compared with existing harnesses are readily apparent.

Firstly, an adult lap belt is used to position the lower portion of the child's harness both laterally and forwardly. Secondly, a back strap, or upper tie-down, connects the child harness at the shoulder strap area to either a rear seat adult lap belt for a front seat installation (Figure 1) in an automobile or to a supplementary anchor installed in the metal portion of the panel between the seat back and the rear window for rear seat installation (Figure 2). Neither the front nor rear seat installations require changes or additions to anchorages at the vehicle floor.

The viability of the upper tie-down attachment has been dynamically demonstrated by a well-known child seating restraint system that not only must restrain the child but also the child seating system itself. The upper tie-down strap most nearly approximates the function of an adult shoulder strap; that is, it keeps the upper torso from pivoting forward in a frontal impact. FMVSS 209 does not specify minimum force requirements for either Type 2, Type 2a, or Type 3 upper torso restraint attachment hardware.

It is suggested, therefore, that the requirements within FMVSS 209 for attachment hardware are neither clear nor appropriate for the Infanseat harness. In addition, the test method for assembly performance does not provide for the recommended installation of this product.

While attempts could be made to modify the simulated seat back shown in Figure 7 of FMVSS 209 to provide for the installation of the Infanseat harness, it is felt that any modification will not adequately reporduce the distribution of forces encountered in real-world situations. Also, any approved simulated static load test of a complete assembly at this time is not felt to be appropriate with dynamic testing of child harnesses soon to be required.

It is respectfully suggested that rather than subject the DOT to possible adverse public criticism by requesting another static test to determine the adequacy of the complete Infanseat harness assembly, it be excluded from the attachment hardware and complete assembly requirements of FMVSS 209. In lieu of these requirements, the Infanseat harness should be required to prevent head excursion of a Sierra three-year-old test device beyond 18 inches in a simulated 30 mph frontal impact test. The Infanseat harness would thus be required to meet the DOT's proposed dynamic performance requirements for child restraints.

Data substantiating the dynamic performance of the Infanseat harness has been independently verified by tests conducted for Consumers Union on prototype harnesses. These tests were not published by CU because the harnesses were not available commercially when their magazine went to press. Additional tests have been conducted to determine the suitability of various materials, installations, and test devices. Significant improvements to the harness are expected to be made, such that it appears likely in the very near future to provide dynamic protection for six-year-old children within the proposed excursion limits desired by the DOT.

As important as the Infanseat harness's dynamic performance is its expected retail selling price. The DOT and child restraint manufacturers are equally concerned that children's restraint devices be affordable by the largest possible segment of the public. It is recognized that the purchase and, therefore, the eventual use of children's restraints are directly related to their cost. The Infanseat harness is expected to be marketed at one-half to one-third of the price of existing restraint systems.

Thank you for your attention to this request for revised interim requirements that would be applicable to the Infanseat harness, and your early response shall be greatly appreciated. It is understood that this product would automatically be required to comply with the proposed revisions to FMVSS 213 when they become effective.

Yours very truly,

QUESTOR JUVENILE PRODUCTS COMPANY;

J. P. Koziatek, P.E. #E-36338 -- Director, Technical Services

Attachments

cc: R. Hitchcock; T. W. Herlihy; M. P. Peskoe; J. C. Gilkey; R. Jasinski

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht74-2.46

DATE: 12/04/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Andrew G. Detrick; NHTSA

TO: Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reference to your defect notification campaign (NHTSA No. 74-0203) concerning trailers equipped with Standard Forge axles which may have defective brake shoes.

The letter which you have sent to the owners of the subject trailers does not completely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR), the Defect Notification regulation. Specifically, the second sentence of your letter describes the defect as existing in the brake shoes. Part 577.4(b), however, requires that in cases where a vehicle manufacturer is notifying owners of vehicles, the letter must state that a defect exists in the vehicle itself. The reference to motor vehicle equipment applies only to equipment campaigns where vehicles are not directly involved. Your letter also fails to adequately evaluate the risk to traffic safety as required by Part 577.4(d) since it does not state that the vehicle crash without warning may occur. Although the statement that reduced braking power or lockup may result may suggest the possibility of a crash to many owners, it is not entirely adequate.

Although mailing of a revised notification letter will not be required, it is expected that in the event that another defect notification campaign ever becomes necessary in the future, the notification letters conform completely with the regulations.

A copy of Part 577 is enclosed. If you desire further information, please contact Messrs. W. Reinhart or James Murray of this office at (202) 426-2840.

Sincerely,

Andrew G. Detrick -- Acting Director, Office of Defects Investigation Motor Vehicle Programs

Enclosure

ATTACH.

MATLOCK TRUCK BODY & TRAILER CORP.

February 11, 1975

Wolfgang Reinhart -- Office of Defects Investigation Motor Vehicle Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: N41-62 re

Dear Mr. Reinhart: I received Mr. Andrew G. Detrick's letter of December the 4th, 1974 in regard to our defect notification campaign (#74-0203). He stated that my letter did not completely meet the requirements of Part 577 (49 CFR) in two specific items. I am returning a copy of his letter with the two points in question underlined in red and marked 1 and 2. Also, I am enclosing a copy of my letter of defect notification with the "answers" underlined in red and marked 1 and 2.

Please note that in the point marked 1 that my letter states that the defect exist in the brake shoes on Matlock MTE (electronic trailers).

In the second point, perhaps we were not specific enough about the possibility of a crash, but we were only quoting the statement in Standard Forge's letter to us.

We sent all the information to Standard Forge concerning the recall after receiving a letter from Mr. Detrick on January the 6th, 1975. In accordance with his letter, we will not submit the quarterly reports. A copy of the letter to Standard Forge is also enclosed.

Yours truly,

Curtis Eddy Vice President - Engineering

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the brake shoes of Standard Forge axles with 12 1/4" x 7 1/2" brakes on Matlock Model MTE (electronic trailers). These axles are used only with 15" wheels and on trailers produced between February 1, 1974 and October 31, 1974.

Standard Forge and Axle Company, one of the world's largest manufacturers of trailer axles, made a change in the brake shoe attachment on some of the axles made for highway trailers early in 1974. After several months of operation, some of these axles have caused brake problems.

Standard Forge has been very prompt in their actions to correct any problems of approximately 5000 axles that are involved. Matlock received only 438 of these axles or about 9%. The other 91% have gone to others, including most of the leading trailer manufacturers.

The axles concerned are only those with 15" wheels with 12 1/4" x 5 1/4" or 12 1/4" x 7 1/2" brakes. Matlock uses only the heavier 12 1/4" x 7 1/2" brakes. If you have a trailer other than a Matlock, as a safety precaution, you might check the brakes yourself or contact your trailer supplier.

Approximately 200 of the 438 axles supplied to Matlock have been corrected already, or are in our plant and will be corrected prior to shipment of new trailers.

For your information, a copy of the letter from Standard Forge alerting trailer companies of a possible problem is enclosed.

The second paragraph of Standard Forge's letter explains the condition that might cause the malfunction and the result of such an occurance. Note that breakage can occur without warning, resulting in reduced braking power or lockup.

We instruct you to remove from service immediately any trailer that has an axle in the list that follows until the brake shoes can be replaced.

Also enclosed is a drawing showing both the correct and incorrect brake shoes. The casting number on the brake shoe will be 201103 on both the correct and incorrect brake shoe. However, the two can be easily distinguished by the shape of the end of the brake shoe. The ones that should be replaced have had the ends milled off; the replacement, or newer parts, have a closed end.

Matlock is attempting to do everything possible to minimize any inconvenience to you. Your cooperation will be appreciated. Please follow the procedure as outlined below:

1. Check the serial number on each axle used with 15" wheels. The serial number is located in the center of the axle on the name tag. If it is a Standard Forge axle and has one of the serial numbers in this list, the brake shoes should be checked and changed if they are the incorrect brake shoes. Some of the axles in this list, however, have already had the brake shoes replaced. If the brake shoes are the correct type on one end of the axle, it will not be necessary to pull the drums on the other end. We will allow one and one-half (1 1/2) hours labor per axle for checking only. In order to be reimbursed for this labor, you MUST send us the trailer serial number and the axle serial number. Be sure that the axle serial number is contained in this list, as we will not pay for labor for axles not contained in this list. 14074 thru 14083 33207 thru 33242 20199 " 20212 34011 " 34035 20213 " 20226 34036 " 34060 24535 " 24634 34111 " 34210 25128 " 25137 36406 " 36465 25348 " 25357 42395 " 42494 27572 " 27589 46360 " 46365

NOTE: If you have a Matlock trailer with 15" wheels, and you cannot read the serial number on the axle, pull the brake drum on one side of each axle to be sure that you do have brake shoes that are the correct type.

2. You may bring your trailer to our plant in Nashville or to our branch in Knoxville for the required rework. You may do the work in your own shop, or you may take it to any reputable trailer repair shop such as, but not limited to, Dorsey, Fruehauf, Great Dane, Lufkin, Nabors, Strick, Timpte, Trailmobile, or Utility. If you have any question as to where you should take your trailer for repair, you may call Mr. Jim Waters of Standard Forge and Axle Company, in Montgomery, Alabama, (205) - 269-1271.

3. The replacement parts are available now and should be ordered from Matlock Truck Body and Trailer Corporation, 1070 Visco Drive, Nashville, Tennessee 37210 - (615) - 259-2000.

The replacement parts will be shipped and invoiced to you at regular parts prices. We will allow up to five (5) hours labor per axle to replace these parts, although we believe that four (4) hours will be sufficient in most cases. Oil seats will be furnished and must be replaced.

You will be given full credit for parts, labor and freight both ways when the parts that are replaced are returned to us in Nashville, freight prepaid. The parts should be returned to the above address and marked to the attention of Mr. Tom Hartigan.

IMPORTANT: All parts returned MUST have the trailer serial number and the axle serial number on the shipping crate and on your invoice to us.

If you have sold or otherwise disposed of a trailer that was built between February 1, 1974 and October 31, 1974, please send us the name and address of the buyer or the disposition of the trailer.

We want to tell you that when you deal with Matlock, you are dealing with a reliable supplier that wants to correct this safety defect. We appreciate your business and would like to take this opportunity to solicit your order for the coming year for your trailer and truck body needs.

Yours truly,

Curtis Eddy Vice President - Engineering