ID: 24459.ztv

Mr. Steve Karcz
Helmetlight, Inc.
P.O. Box 190151
Anchorage, AK 99519

Dear Mr. Karcz:

This is in reply to your letter of May 20, 2002, with reference to your "Lead-Dog Helmet Light" intended for motorcycle operators.You asked whether there are "Federal issues" involved with it.

You related that the Helmet Light "is wired to the motorcycles existing headlight, taillight, and brake light wires," and then, "attached to the riders helmet with VELCRO." You stated further that "our headlight is wired into the high beam wire of the motorcycle and controlled by the high/low beam switch." When the Helmet Light is on, "our housing illuminates red creating a second, more visible taillight atop the helmet." Finally, "our brake light is wired to the motorcycles brake light wire and activated by the brake light switch. . . ." We note from your website that the light source is described as a "35 watt halogen spotlight."

I enclose a copy of an interpretation of this Office dated May 22, 1992, to Larry Nunn of Automotive Lighting Technologies regarding a similar invention. This letter will provide you with our views on the relationship to your invention of the laws that we administer. Our views remain the same today. However, the relevant statute was recodified in 1994. As a result, the statutory references in the 1992 letter have changed."Section 102(4) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(4))" defining "motor vehicle equipment," is now 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(7). "Section 108(a)(2)(A)" relating to post-sale vehicle modifications has become 49 U.S.C. 30122. Finally, "sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419)" concerning recall and remedy are now 49 U.S.C. 30117-30121.

In brief, Helmet Light is considered "motor vehicle equipment" under the Safety Act. There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that directly apply to motor vehicle equipment that is designed to be attached to a motorcycle helmet and connected with the wiring system of a motorcycle. We are concerned, however, about the potential effects of Helmet Light on compliance of the helmet to which it is attached, with FMVSS No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, and of the motorcycle with FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, when Helmet Light is connected with the wiring system.

Specifically, FMVSS No. 218 (S5.5) prohibits a motorcycle helmet from having a rigid projection on the outside of a helmet shell, except for "those required for operation of essential accessories, and shall not protrude more than 0.20 inch (5 mm)." We do not regard Helmet Light as an "essential accessory" within the meaning of the phrase. This means that a motorcycle helmet to which Helmet Light is attached would not comply with FMVSS No. 218. Under 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), it is a violation to manufacture for sale, sell, or offer for sale a motorcycle helmet that fails to comply with FMVSS No. 218. This means that a helmet may not be sold with Helmet Light attached, or as part of the sale of a new helmet. Whether it is legal for a person to operate a motorcycle while wearing a helmet with Helmet Light attached is not a Federal question, but a question to be answered under the laws of each jurisdiction in which Helmet Light is used.

Individual items of lighting equipment on motor vehicles are required to meet specified minimum candela at certain specified test points. We would have a safety concern if connection of Helmet Light to the motorcycle lighting system in some manner reduced candela at any test point of any lamp below the minimum specified in the standard so that the motorcycle no longer complied with the specifications of FMVSS No. 108 when Helmet Light was operating.

We are also concerned about the potential glare effects of the use of Helmet Light, which you further describe as a "35 halogen watt spot lamp." You advise on your web site "NEVER point spot lamp at another persons eyes, you may temporarily affect their vision."This caution indicates that there is a distinct possibility of glare when a motorcyclist wearing a Helmet Light turns his or her head side to the side when approaching a crossroads or corner, or when the light is projected into the interior and exterior rearview mirrors of a vehicle ahead. Glare is a current issue of great public concern, and the agency has received several hundred letters relating to headlamps and daytime running lamps.

We would be especially concerned if the "35 halogen watt spot lamp" were distracting to the point that an oncoming driver would fail to notice the motorcycles front turn signals when they were operating. Lighting equipment other than that specified by FMVSS No. 108 is not permissible as original equipment if it impairs the effectiveness of required lighting equipment such as turn signal lamps. Although Helmet Light is not an item of original motorcycle lighting equipment, it becomes part of the overall motorcycle lighting and conspicuity package when it is used and there are sound safety reasons that the same principle should apply, that it not impair the effectiveness of the required lighting equipment.

However, there is no Federal prohibition on the sale of Helmet Light as a vehicle accessory independent of the sale of a motorcycle helmet. As noted above, State laws determine whether it is legal to operate a motorcycle while wearing a Helmet Light.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.9/23/02

ID: nht79-2.7

DATE: 02/13/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 15, 1978, petition asking for changes in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection, as that standard applies to the measurement of contact area. In particular, you ask the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to amend the standard adopting a specific test medium for measuring contact area and deleting the existing list of acceptable contact area test mediums currently established in the agency's compliance test procedures.

On July 19, 1978, the NHTSA responded to an earlier petition (December 20, 1977) submitted by you on this same issue. In that letter, the NHTSA denied your requested amendment of the standard. Your current petition presents no additional data or arguments supporting your suggested modification that were not presented and thoroughly considered in our determination of your first petition. Accordingly, for the reasons specified in our July 19, 1978, letter to you, the agency denies your suggested rulemaking.

In your August 15 petition, you suggested that Standard No. 222 should incorporate more detailed test procedures, because some of the agency's other safety standards specify test procedures in greater detail. Standard No. 222 currently specifies test procedures to be used by manufacturers in complying with the standard. However, like all of the agency's standards, Standard No. 222's compliance test procedures are even more detailed than the requirements specified in the standard.

The NHTSA writes safety standards as simply as possible while providing the necessary detail for manufacturers to comply with their requirements. A manufacturer is then permitted to develop its own test procedures as long as its procedures are compatible with the requirements of the standard. The NHTSA, itself, devises tests that it uses for testing a vehicle's compliance. Whenever possible, these tests are available to manufacturers, and manufacturers are free to adopt them or to proceed with their own test procedures. Your twice-submitted petition would have the NHTSA rewrite its standards in a manner that would specify test procedures in greater detail. Such an approach would increase the complexity of safety standards if done uniformly to all standards and would in fact be detrimental to small manufacturers. The purpose of allowing some variation in details of test procedures is to permit a manufacturer to develop test procedures that are tailored to that manufacturer's needs and constraints. For example, certain test procedures used by the NHTSA may be too costly for a small manufacturer. Under the current compliance system, any manufacturer can develop a less expensive alternative test methodology. Under the system that you propose, however, a manufacturer would be required to adopt the test procedures specified in the standard. Since your suggestion, if applied to all safety standard, could add costs to the agency's regulations without achieving any significant benefits, the NHTSA determines that your suggested amendment is not in the public interest.

SINCERELY,

BLUE BIRD BODY COMPANY

August 15, 1978

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PETITION

References: 1. W. G. Milby Petition of December 20, 1977. 2. J. J. Levin to W. G. Milby, NOA-30 July 19, 1978. 3. R & D 222 - MS - 78-01 - Impact Media Evaluation.

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to reference 2 and to again petition the agency on the same subject as reference 1. The basis for this second petition is reference 3, which was not available when the first petition was submitted and apparently was not consulted by the agency before denying reference 1.

To quote a ranking NHTSA official, "regulation without enforcement is meaningless." We agree. But to have enforcement, there must be a repeatable procedure which all interested parties use. Otherwise test results are not comparable. When methodology causes significant variance in the test results, then, methodology must be addressed before rational enforcement can exist.

Today, as documented in reference 3, the allowable variations in test methodology regarding FMVSS 222 contact area cause significant variance in the test results and prevent rational enforcement. This is the reason we submitted reference 1, a petition requesting rulemaking action on FMVSS 222 which would require and allow only one transfer medium for measuring contact areas.

Reference 2 denies that petition. However, we believe the reasons which the agency set forth as a basis for the denial are not valid. Further, the agency did not address the content of the proposed amendment in reference 1. Each of the reasons the agency gave for denying reference 1 is discussed below with comments showing why they are not valid.

1. The first reason NHTSA gave for denial was that the agency does not specify the "details for manufacturer testing . . .", but instead, leaves it up to each manufacturer to determine how to test. We do not believe this is true in all cases. For example, FMVSS 121 goes into significant detail for air brake testing. FMVSS 209 goes into even more detail on seat belt assemblies, with the demonstration procedures alone requiring 11 pages. Therefore we conclude that the NHTSA does specify details in a standard when it is consisted with good rulemaking.

2. The second reason for denial was that the agency does adopt certain test procedures for use in its own compliance testing and that manufacturers are free to use these test procedures. It is true that NHTSA has published test procedures for FMVSS 222. However, these procedures are inadequate with respect to contact area measurement methodology as was spelled out in detail in reference 1. The basis of our petition, reference 1, was that the test procedures for FMVSS 222, as well as the standard itself, contains inadequate detail to insure consistent contact area measurements. Therefore, simply stating that NHTSA has published test procedures is not a valid reason for denying the petition.

3. NHTSA's third reason for denying the petition was that NHTSA makes the test procedures public and manufacturers are welcome to use them for their own testing. While it is true that the test procedures are eventually made public, reference 1 points out the fact that test procedures are sometimes not made public in time for manufacturers to use them for certification testing. In fact, we were not able to get the FMVSS 222 test procedures until December 9, 1977, and that was only in response to our request made under the Freedom of Information Act.

4. The fourth reason given for denial of the petition was that "the transfer medium specified in the NHTSA compliance test are for the purpose of convenience of NHTSA testing." We do not believe that the convenience of NHTSA testing should be given higher priority than the need for specifying procedures which will give repeatable results. In fact, as the standard and test procedures now allow more than one transfer medium, it results in inconvenience to all parties involved, including NHTSA, rather than convenience. This is so because allowing different transfer media causes different results which then generate false indications of non compliance. This is very costly as well as inconvenient to all parties involved.

None of these reasons, in our opinion, is a valid basis upon which to deny our petition reference 1. Since this issue must be resolved before enforcement of this part of the standard can occur, we hereby again petition NHTSA to amend FMVSS 222 as follows:

1. Change paragraph 6.8 to read "Except for during contact area measurement impacts, the head form and knee form, and contactable surfaces are clean and dry during impact testing."

2. Add a new paragraph 6.8.1 to read "Prior to each contact area impact, use a bristle brush to apply a cost of latex base exterior house paint to the entire sperical surface of the head or knee form. Wipe the head or knee form clean after each contact area impact."

3. Add a paragraph 6.8.2 to read "Immediately after each contact area impact, record the contact area pattern by holding a piece of vellum drafting paper stationary over the pattern and firmly rubbing it."

4. Add a new paragraph 6.8.3 to read "After allowing contact area patterns to dry on the vellum paper, draw non intersecting lines tangent to the outer bounds of areas of direct contact. the contact area is that area enclosed by the periphery of these lines and the area of direct contact. Measure this area by tracing the periphery with a direct reading planimeter."

We look forward to receiving an affirmative response to this petition within 120 days.

Thank you.

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht94-1.52

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: February 11, 1994

FROM: Jerry L. Steffy -- Triumph Designs, Ltd.

TO: Taylor Vinson -- NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/16/94 from John Womack to Jerry L. Steffy (A42; Std. 108; Part 555)

TEXT:

Since I faxed you with my question regarding FMVSS 108 and ECE Reg. 20, I received Part 555 of 49 CFR from Luke Loy.

555.5 implies that we could apply for an exemption from FMVSS 108 for this headlamp since there exists "an equivalent overall level of motor vehicle safety." This is of course, if NHTSA recognizes the worthiness of the testing under ECE Reg. 20.

This exemption would only be for the first model year as afterwards we will change to a headlamp already FMVSS 108.

Can you please confirm for the if this is a route we can employ in this instance?

Best regards.

2-10-94 fax from J.L. Steffy to Taylor Vinson: Dear Taylor:

Luke Loy suggested that I contact you with a specific query I have. Recently, in Canada, we were able to use ECE Reg. 20 in lieu of FMVSS 108 for a particular headlamp system use. Is it possible to substitute ECE 20 for FMVSS 108 in the states in some instances? Of course the majority of our suppliers fulfill testing according to FMVSS 108 however, there are individual exceptions. Some cases may require significant investment in order to have individual cases comply, so it is important to know.

Best regards

ID: 9958

The Honorable Mike Parker
House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-2404

Dear Mr. Parker:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District, concerning your constituent's desire to install television monitors in school buses to air "drug-free videos." You asked whether the installation would be consistent with our school bus regulations.

I am pleased to explain our school bus regulations. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection." The standard has head impact protection requirements that require the area around a school bus passenger to be free of surfaces that could injure the child in a crash. All new school buses must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 222.

Our regulations do not prohibit Jones County from installing the video equipment in their school buses. Since the FMVSS only apply to new school buses, we do not require existing school buses to continue to meet FMVSS No. 222. Further, NHTSA does not regulate in any manner how individual owners choose to modify their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District may install the television monitors in its school buses without regard to whether the head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 222 are maintained. However, we would urge Jones County to install the television monitors safely. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization entails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and to ensure that the seating area is free from harmful structures. To protect school bus

passengers, we suggest to Jones County that any video equipment installed on a school bus should be outside of an area that a school bus passenger might impact in a crash. Further, the equipment should be installed so that it does not become unsecured, especially during a crash where any projectile can be very dangerous to the vehicle occupants.

We also note that the Safety Act limits how certain commercial businesses may modify new or existing school buses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with any FMVSS. If any of these parties installed the video equipment in a manner that rendered inoperative the compliance of the school bus with FMVSS No. 222, a possible violation of '108(a)(2)(A) could result.

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108(a)(2)(A) does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District, the owner of the school buses, could install the equipment itself in its own shops without violating this or any other provision of the Safety Act. As mentioned above, NHTSA urges the school district to ensure that the equipment does not degrade the safety of the school buses, particularly with regard to the head impact protection provided by the buses.

I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please feel free to contact John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, at this address or at (202) 366-9511.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Hart Acting Administrator

ref:222#VSA d:5/31/94

ID: nht94-3.10

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: May 31, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mike Parker -- House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/18/94 from Mike Parker to Christopher Hart, letter dated 1/31/94 from Steve Williams to William Moss, and letter dated 1/28/94 from Steve Williams to Terry L. Voy

TEXT:

Thank you for your letter on behalf of your constituent, Mr. George Duke of the Jones County School District, concerning your constituent's desire to install television monitors in school buses to air "drug-free videos." You asked whether the installatio n would be consistent with our school bus regulations.

I am pleased to explain our school bus regulations. By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (Safety Act) authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety s tandards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles, including school buses. Under the authority of the Safety Act, NHTSA issued FMVSS No. 222, "School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection." The standard has head impact protection requirements that require the area around a school bus passenger to be free of surfaces that could injure the child in a crash. All new school buses must be certified as complying with FMVSS No. 222.

Our regulations do not prohibit Jones County from installing the video equipment in their school buses. Since the FMVSS only apply to new school buses, we do not require existing school buses to continue to meet FMVSS No. 222. Further, NHTSA does not reg ulate in any manner how individual owners choose to modify their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District may install the television monitors in its school buses without regard to whether the head impact protection requirements of FMVSS No. 2 22 are maintained. However, we would urge Jones County to install the television monitors safely. Standard No. 222 requires large school buses to provide passenger crash protection through a concept called "compartmentalization." Compartmentalization ent ails improving the interior of the school bus with protective seat backs, additional seat padding, and better seat spacing and performance. These interior features are intended to keep occupants in their seating area and to ensure that the seating area i s free from harmful structures. To protect school bus passengers, we suggest to Jones County that any video equipment installed on a school bus should be outside of an area that a school bus passenger might impact in a crash. Further, the equipment shoul d be installed so that it does not become unsecured, especially during a crash where any projectile can be very dangerous to the vehicle occupants.

We also note that the Safety Act limits how certain commercial businesses may modify new or existing school buses. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor

vehicle repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of equipment in compliance with any FMVSS. If any of these parties installed the video equipment in a manner that rendered inoperative the compliance of the school bus with FMVSS No. 222, a possible violation of S108 (a) (2) (A) could result.

The "render inoperative" provision of section 108 (a) (2) (A) does not apply to owners modifying their own vehicles. Thus, the Jones County School District, the owner of the school buses, could install the equipment itself in its own shops without violat ing this or any other provision of the Safety Act. As mentioned above, NHTSA urges the school district to ensure that the equipment does not degrade the safety of the school buses, particularly with regard to the head impact protection provided by the bu ses.

I hope this information will be helpful to you in responding to your constituent. If you or your constituent have any further questions, please feel free to contact John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, at this address or at (202) 366-9511.

ID: nht88-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/11/88

FROM: PAUL ULTANS -- VICE PRESIDENT GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS SUBARU OF AMERICA

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

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/13/88 TO PAUL UTANS FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 STANDARD 208, STANDARD 210; LETTER DATED 08/18/78 TO D. BLACK FROM JOSEPH J LEVIN, STANDARD 210, RE NOA - 30

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Subaru of America, requests your interpretation of how the requirements of various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) apply to a belt system Subaru would like to offer as standard equipment on its U.S. station wagon models, beginning in m id-model year 1989. This system is a manual, single-loop, 3-point (combination lap-shoulder) belt for use at the rear outboard seating positions.

Subaru currently offers a manual lap belt at the rear outboard positions of our station wagons. The belt system that we would like to offer is now used in European versions of these autos. It has a single-point buckle mechanism and is automatically adjustable. The upper anchorage for this European belt is located outside the FMVSS 210 "approved range", but within the ECE Regulation No. 14 "permitted area". (See enclosed Figures 1 and 2.) n1

n1 The vehicles in question have an additional upper anchorage located in the U.S. approved range, as required by FMVSS 210. However, the European belt system cannot directly be used with the U.S. anchorage, due to the need for additional bolt holes to accommodate the European belt and its retractor.

It is our view that the installation of the European-type belt in the ECE anchorage is permitted under the various FMVSSs. The European system qualifies as a "Type 2 belt assembly", as required in FMVSS 208. The European belt assembly is certified t o meet the requirements of FMVSS 209 by the belt manufacturer. The anchorages required under FMVSS 210 (including the current upper anchorage in the U.S. approved range) would continue to be provided. Therefore, we believe all the explicit requirements of these standards would continue to be met.

The minimum FMVSS seat belt requirements for rear outboard seating positions provide for lap belts and an additional upper anchorage (in a specified location). The upper anchorage is included to permit owner retrofit of a 3-point belt system, if desi red. Under our proposal, we would continue to provide these items. In addition, Subaru would voluntarily provide the shoulder portion of the belt and an additional anchorage. We believe the additional, voluntarily provided, items should not be subject to regulation, so long as they do not impair the functioning of any required safety equipment. We do not believe that the additional upper anchorage and shoulder belt section will in any way impair the operation of the lap belt section. To the contrar y, we believe that the additional items will provide further safety benefits. Permitting use of the European-type belt and anchorage would enable Subaru to provide U.S. vehicle purchasers with the benefits of three point restraint in an automatically adj ustable system at the earliest possible date. Requiring the use of an upper anchorage within the U.S. acceptable range would result in delay while anchorage and/or belt modifications are engineered and implemented.

In order for Subaru to begin offering the proposed belt system by mid-model year 1989 (e.g., to arrange for the necessary supplies of belt systems), we would need to receive your response to this letter no later than November 1, 1988. Therefore, we r equest your expeditious consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

FIGURE 1

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

FIGURE 2

(DIAGRAM OMITTED)

1989 SUBARU STATION WAGON PROPOSED REAR SEAT THREE-POINT SEAT BELT INSTALLATION

ID: 08-000497--16 Jan 09--rewrite

ID: nht91-1.48

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Gary P. Toth -- Attorney, Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation,

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert A. Rogers; Barry A. Felrice; Robert Hellmuth; Steven R. Kratzke

TITLE: Re FMVSS 209 Compliance of GM Dual-Spring Retractor Designs

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary P. Toth (A37; Std. 209)

TEXT:

On September 11, 1990, representatives of General Motors Corporation (GM) met with NHTSA personnel to review several seat belt retractor designs planned for future GM products. These retractor designs included comfort features involving dual-spring rates and intentional set slack capability. By letter dated November 2, 1990 (USG 2829), we sent your office copies of the presentation materials, with a request for confidential treatment.

The purpose of this letter is to seek the agency's concurrence that the two dual-spring retractor designs we reviewed with the agency meet the minimum retraction force requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In connection with this request for interpretation, we also seek the agency's reevaluation of a February, 1984 interpretation, which implies that use of dual-spring retractors planned by GM might be precluded by FMVSS 209. But for that interpretation, GM would have no difficulty in concluding that these designs meet the minimum retraction force requirements of S 4.3(j)(5) and (6) of FMVSS 209, when tested in accordance with S 5.2(j).

Attachments 1 and 2 of this letter contain proprietary information describing in more detail the operation of the systems we reviewed with the agency on September 11. This information is not customarily made public by GM, and contains trade secrets and commercial information within the meaning of Section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Therefore, it is our position that these attachments are entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of Title 5 of the United States Code (Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act) and Section 112(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended and implemented in Part 512 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Accordingly, pursuant to 49 CFR S 512.4, GM requests that Attachments 1 and 2, which have been stamped "G.M. Confidential", be withheld from public disclosure as confidential business information for an indefinite period (except for any information which will ultimately be publicly disclosed by the availability of these designs in production vehicles). Any disclosure of this information before that time is likely to result in substantial competitive harm to GM for the same reasons set forth in USG 2829 and in the certification provided with that letter.

INTRODUCTION

GM has been a strong advocate of safety belt usage and is continuing to evaluate alternative means for improving the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems. During the September 11 meeting, we reviewed two dual-spring retractor systems, both of which are intended to reduce shoulder belt pressure on all sized occupants, which we know to be a significant factor in belt comfort.

The operation of both of these retractor designs is such that when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant, a lower retractor spring rate is, or can be, engaged to minimize the shoulder belt pressure on the occupant. When the belt is removed, a higher force spring rate is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Detailed descriptions of the operation of the two designs are provided in confidential Attachments 1 and 2.

FEBRUARY, 1984 NHTSA INTERPRETATION

By letter dated February 29, 1984, NHTSA issued an interpretation to the United States Testing Company, Inc., of Hoboken, New Jersey. That company sought the agency's evaluation of a retractor design utilizing a tension reducer device (comfort type mechanism), described as a "Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor". The tension reducer device was activated by the vehicle door. With the door open, the mechanism operated in a high tension mode. With the door closed, the mechanism operated in a low tension mode.

The company suggested that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in FMVSS 209. The company also stated its opinion that: (1) the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force; and (2) the low tension mode be tested for maximum retraction force.

The agency agreed with the company's suggestion that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort, but disagreed with the suggestion that only the high tension mode should be tested for minimum retraction force, and that only the low tension mode should be tested for maximum retraction force. In this regard, the agency stated:

... (B)ecause Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, we interpret the standard to require that all of its requirements must be met in both tension modes. For example, under section S4.3(j)(6), both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the 0.2 to 1.5 pound range.

The agency's interpretation, however, did not consider, or attempt to reconcile its conclusion with, S5.2(j) of FMVSS 209, which identifies the test procedure for evaluating the retractive forces specified in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). Stated differently, the substantive requirements in FMVSS 209 S4.3(j) (5) and (6) are tied directly to the test procedure in S5.2(j), and there is no analysis of how the United States Testing Company device would perform when tested in accordance with S5.2(j). The 1984 interpretation simply states that both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the specified range without reference to the procedure specified for assessing compliance to these requirements.

Factually, the United States Testing Company device is clearly distinguishable from either of the GM retractor designs. It was apparently designed to activate the lower rate spring simply depending upon whether the vehicle door was open or closed. This is not the case with either of the GM systems reviewed with the agency. The first retractor system requires intentional occupant action -- extracting three to five inches of webbing -- to activate the lover rate spring. The lower rate spring in the second system is activated only when lap belt webbing has been extracted a certain length from its stowed position.

The two GM retractor designs can be tested in accordance with the procedure in S5.2(j) without modifying the hardware or the test procedure. When tested in accordance with S5.2(j), both designs meet the minimum retractor force requirements in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). If it were necessary, however, to modify the retractor hardware or test procedure in some way so that the lower rate springs (which would not otherwise be operational) were tested separately, as is suggested by the agency's February, 1984 interpretation, it is unlikely that these springs could meet the minimum retraction force requirements in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). However, such an interpretation would impose a new substantive requirement upon dual-spring retractors divorced from the test procedure in S5.2(j).

CLOSING

In closing, GM requests that NHTSA provide us a new interpretation indicating that the dual-spring retractor designs which we reviewed with the agency on September 11, and which are further described in Attachments 1 and 2, would comply with the minimum retractor force requirements of S4.3(j)(5) and (6) if tested in accordance with S5.2(j) of FMVSS 209 without separately testing the lower rate springs. In addition, to minimize future concerns relative to the meaning or effect of the February, 1984 interpretation, we ask that NHTSA reevaluate that interpretation, and consider limiting its effect to the facts presented in the United States Testing Company letter.

We trust that the information contained in this letter and presented on September 11 will provide a sufficient basis for the agency to concur with GM's determination regarding the compliance of these dual-spring retractor designs with FMVSS 209. However, please contact me if I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter.

ID: 08_003235--sa--08 June 24

ID: 2910yy

Mr. Ian A. Munro
Tubex Pty., Ltd.
96 Station St.
Nunawading VIC 3131
AUSTRALIA

Dear Mr. Munro:

This responds to your February 8, 1991 letter to Mr. John Messera of NHTSA's Enforcement Office about the air brake hose (tubing) you manufacture. Your questions have been referred to my office for reply.

By way of background, NHTSA administers Federal regulations for the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment (including brake hoses) sold in or imported into this country. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS's). This process requires each manufacturer to determine in the exercise of due care that its products meet all applicable requirements. NHTSA tests vehicles and equipment sold to consumers for compliance with the FMVSS's and investigates defects relating to motor vehicle safety. If a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a noncompliance or safety-related defect exists, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of its product and remedy the problem free of charge. (Note that this responsibility is borne by the vehicle manufacturer in cases in which your hoses are installed on a new vehicle by or with the express authorization of that vehicle manufacturer.) Any manufacturer which fails to provide notification of or remedy for a noncompliance or defect may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Standard 106 applies to new motor vehicles and to "brake hoses" (which include plastic tubing), brake hose end fittings, and brake hose assemblies. The standard specifies labeling and performance requirements for these products to reduce the likelihood of brake system failure from ruptures in the brake hose or brake hose assembly. New brake hoses, end fittings and assemblies must meet these requirements to be sold in or imported into this country. If the items do not comply, the manufacturer is subject to civil penalties of $1000 per violation, and the notification and remedy provisions of the Safety Act. I have enclosed a copy of the Safety Act for your information.

Your first question asks how you would "register" your hose and "air coil connectors" with NHTSA. By "register," we believe you mean the process by which a manufacturer files a designation with NHTSA that identifies the manufacturer. The manufacturer's designation is marked on its hose, end fittings and assemblies, and assists NHTSA in identifying the manufacturer of noncomplying or defective brake hoses.

The filing and labeling requirements for the manufacturer designation are in S7.2.1 for air brake hose, S7.2.2 for end fittings, and S7.2.3 or S7.2.3.1 for assemblies. To "register" your designation (which may consist of block capital letters, numerals or a symbol), you would simply file the designation in writing with NHTSA's Crash Avoidance Division at the following address: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. You may telephone Mr. Vernon Bloom of the Crash Avoidance Division at (202) 366-5277 if you have questions about filing your designation.

Your second question asks whether compliance with SAE Standard J844, "Nonmetallic Air Brake System Tubing" is sufficient to be assured of compliance with FMVSS 106. The answer is no. Your hoses must be certified as meeting FMVSS 106 to be sold in or imported into this country. To determine the answer to your question, you would have to examine SAE J844 and FMVSS 106, and compare their requirements. Where the requirements differ, FMVSS 106 is the standard that must be met.

Your third question asks for information on all Federal requirements for the sale of nylon air brake tubing in the United States. I have enclosed a copy of FMVSS 106 for your reference. I also note that our sister agency in the Department, the Federal Highway Administration, has operational and equipment requirements for trucks used in interstate commerce. If you are interested in that agency's requirements for brake tubing, you can write to them at the address provided in the enclosed information sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

In addition, I have enclosed copies of two procedural requirements you must satisfy in order to sell your products in this country. The first requirement is NHTSA's regulation for manufacturer identification (49 CFR Part 566). This regulation requires a manufacturer of equipment to which an FMVSS applies (e.g., brake hose) to submit its name, address, and a brief description of the items of equipment it manufactures to NHTSA within 30 days after it first imports its products into the United States.

The second requirement is NHTSA's regulation for designations of agents (49 CFR Part 551, Procedural Rules, Subpart D). The regulation requires all manufacturers headquartered outside of the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of all process, notices, orders and decisions. This designation should be mailed to me at the following address: Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., S.W., Washington, D.C., 20590. The designation must include the following information:

1. A certification that the designation of agent is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate-by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear its name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm or a United States corporation; and,

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

7. In addition, the designation must be signed by a person with authority to appoint the agent. The signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his or her signature.

A final question raised in your letter is whether Table III of Standard 106 applies to rubber hose only. The answer is yes. NHTSA issued a final rule on February 25, 1991 (56 FR 7589) that amended Standard 106 so that Table III expressly applies to rubber brake hoses only, and not hoses made from plastic tubing. A copy of the rule is enclosed.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:106 d:3/29/9l