ID: nht91-3.5

DATE: April 1, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Mark A. Pacheco -- Vice President, Innovative Industries of Tampa, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-6-91 from Mark A. Pacheco to Department Of Transportation, NHDSA (OCC 5800)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter in which you asked about the application of Federal regulations to your client's product. This product, called a "Walk Machine," looks like a two-wheeled scooter, with a small 37cc engine attached to it. You stated that this product is designed for off-road use.

NHTSA has the authority under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A); Safety Act) to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Section 102(3) of the Safety Act defines "motor vehicle" as:

(A)ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle." Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles were to be operated.

Your letter did not indicate whether the "Walk Machine" would be designed and sold solely for off-road use, or whether it would be used on-road for a substantial amount of time. However, based on your letter, this vehicle would not be a "motor vehicle" even if it is regularly used on the public roads. This is because NHTSA has stated in many previous interpretations that vehicles that regularly use the public roads will not be considered "motor vehicles" if such vehicles have a maximum attainable speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) and have an abnormal configuration which readily

distinguishes them from other vehicles. The information provided for the "Walk Machine" indicates that it has a top speed of 16 mph and a configuration that would readily distinguish it from motorcycles and other two-wheeled vehicles.

Because this vehicle is not a "motor vehicle," none of this agency's standards apply to it. You may wish to contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission to learn if they have any Federal safety regulations that would apply to this vehicle. Their address is: Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 5401 Westbard Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20207. You may also wish to consider the possible application of State laws to your client's product. For additional information on State laws, you may contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators at: 4200 Wilson Blvd., Suite 600, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

ID: nht90-2.100

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/25/90

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 05/30/90 FROM NANCY L. BRUCE -- DOT TO LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS; LETTER DATED 05/25/90 FROM LAWRENCE J. SMITH -- CONGRESS TO NANCY BRUCE -- DOT; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE; UNDATED BY UPI; US SUES 4 AUTO TINTING SHOPS; OCC 4842; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/30/90; BY STEVE MOORE -- BUSINESS MARKETS; LOCAL CRAFTSMAN UNSWAYED BY FEDERAL CIVIL LAWSUITS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 BY BRUCE VIELMETTI -- ST PETERSBURG TIMES; US CRACKS DOWN ON WINDOW TINTERS; NEWSPAPER ARTICLE DATED 03/29/90 FROM JIM LEUSNER -- ORLANDO SENTINEL; US SUES CAR - WINDOW TINTERS - LET THERE BE MORE LIGHT; 1984 FLORIDA AUTO TINT LAW; PRESS RELEASE DATED 03/28/90 BY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TEXT: I am writing in response to your letter forwarding correspondence from your constituent, Mr. Joel Leitson, with respect to litigation recently brought by the United States against several firms that install plastic film, or "tint," on automobile windows.

You have asked about the statutory authority under which these suits were brought. Pursuant to section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 ("Safety Act"), 15 U.S.C. @ 1392, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") has issued safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. One of the standards that we have issued under this authority is Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205), which applies to all new vehicles and all new glazing materials for use in motor vehicles. Among the requirements set forth in Standard No. 205 are specifications for minimum levels of light transmittance (70 percent light transmittance in areas requisite for driving visibility, which includes all windows in passenger cars).

Section 108(a)(i)(A) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A), provides that no person may manufacture or sell any vehicle unless it is in conformity with all applicable safety standards. Pursuant to section 108(b)(1) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(b)(1), this paragraph does not apply after a vehicle is first sold to a consumer. However, both before and after the first sale, section 108(a)(2) of the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(2), provides that "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . ."

Thus, by installing tint firm on automobiles that reduces the light transmittance of their glass below 70 percent, the firms in question have been rendering those vehicles "inoperative," in violation of the Safety Act. The same principle would apply to a service station that removed an airbag or a safety belt from a vehicle, since such an action would create

a noncompliance with the occupant protection requirements of NHTSA's standards.

You also asked for our comments on whether Florida's statutes are preempted by these suits. We assume that you are referring to the provision of Florida law that prohibits the operation of any vehicle in the State of Florida that has glazing with less than 35 percent light transmittance. This statute, and similar statutes adopted by other states, do not purport to legitimize conduct -- the rendering inoperative of glazing by tint installation firms -- that is illegal under the Safety Act. Thus, there is no conflict with Federal law, and Florida may continue to enforce its operating rules.

I hope that this responds to your questions. If we can be of further assistance, please let me know.

ID: nht92-8.13

DATE: March 30, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Arthur J. Kuminski -- Design Engineer, Eberhard Manufacturing Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2/3/92 from Arthur J. Kuminski to Paul J. Rice (OCC 6952)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of February 3, 1992 concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. You asked about the standard's test requirements for sliding doors on cargo vans (sections S4.3 and S5.3). Your three questions and the response to each follow.

1. I will need specifications on how to perform this test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and the door latch only.

Standard No. 206 "specifies requirements for side door locks and side door retention components including latches, hinges, and other supporting means, to minimize the likelihood of occupants being thrown from the vehicle as a result of impact." The standard's requirements for sliding doors are set forth in sections S4.3 and S5.3.

Section S4.3 specifies that the track and slide combination or other supporting means for each sliding door shall not separate when a total transverse load of 4,000 pounds is applied, with the door in the closed position. Section S5.3 states, "(c)ompliance with S4.3 shall be demonstrated by applying an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The demonstration may be performed either in the vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture."

Under section S5.3, the same basic procedure is conducted whether the test is conducted in a vehicle or with the door retention components in a bench test fixture, i.e., an outward transverse load of 2,000 pounds is applied to the load bearing members at the opposite edges of the door (4,000 pounds total). The details of the procedure using a bench test fixture will necessarily vary for different designs of sliding doors, since the door retention components themselves vary. The test should be conducted in such a manner that the same loads are applied to the door retention components as would occur in a vehicle test.

You specifically asked about how to perform the test on a test fixture using the striker assembly and door latch only. I note that since the requirement in section S4.3 applies to the "track and slide combination or other supporting means" for a sliding door, the striker assembly and door latch of a sliding door are tested only if they are part of the supporting means for the door. I also note that the entire supporting means for a sliding door is tested under section S5.3 and not merely one part.

I have enclosed for your information a copy of a May 13, 1975 interpretation letter to Toyota (including the incoming letter) which discusses various demonstration test fixtures which might be used to test sliding doors under Standard No. 206.

2. What load must the system withstand in the primary locked position to pass the test?

3. Is there a load requirement that the system must withstand in the secondary locked position to pass the test?

Section S4.1.1 of Standard No. 206 requires hinged doors, other than cargo-type doors to have both a fully latched position and a secondary latched position. There is not a similar requirement for sliding doors. Section S4.3 requires only one test, with a total load of 4,000 pounds, for sliding doors. This test would be performed with the door latched.

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

ID: nht92-6.47

DATE: May 19, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: B.J. Forney

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter from B.J. Forney to Diane K. Steed (OCC 7235)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter, asking whether a vehicle equipped with a product you have invented could be operated legally on the public roads. Although your letter did not provide details of this invention, it appears it would supply wind energy to the engine in an effort to reduce the amount of gasoline burned to power the engine. I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) authorizes this agency to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. While NHTSA has not issued any standards that apply directly to devices like your product, our safety standards do establish minimum performance requirements for a number of vehicle systems, including the braking system, the accelerator control system, and fuel system integrity. Accordingly, while you would not have to certify that your product complies with any safety standards, any person installing your product on a new vehicle prior to the first retail sale of the vehicle would be required to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards with your product installed. NHTSA is not authorized to certify or approve motor vehicles for compliance with the Federal safety standards. Instead, under the Safety Act, each manufacturer of a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is responsible for certifying that its products meet all of our applicable safety standards.

After the first retail sale of a vehicle, a person installing your product on the vehicle would no longer be required to certify that the vehicle continued to comply with all applicable safety standards. Instead, a different provision of Federal law would be relevant. This provision is 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A), which specifies that, "no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." This statutory provision would be violated by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business if its installation of your product on a vehicle caused the vehicle to no longer comply with one of our safety standards.

Finally, NHTSA has authority to investigate allegations that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as your product, contain defects related to motor vehicle safety. If either you, as the manufacturer of the product or this agency were to determine that your product contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, you would be required to notify owners of your product and to remedy any such defect without charge to the owner, as provided in sections 151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420).

As you see, the laws and regulations of this agency do not directly relate to the use of any product. The individual States have authority to regulate the operation and use of vehicles and motor vehicle equipment within their borders. For further information on the laws of the States, you may wish to contact: American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: bottling_trailer5853v2

Sandra Swanson, Branch Manager
PBB Global Logistics
400 Oyster Point Blvd. #539
S. San Francisco, CA 94080




Dear Mr. Swanson:

This responds to your letter in which you ask if a trailer your client is considering to import into the United States is a "motor vehicle" as defined in our standards. As explained below, our answer is yes.

In your letter, you state that the trailer is not equipped with an engine and is not primarily for "road use". You state that the trailer is equipped with bottling equipment and would be transported to wineries to assist in the bottling of wine. You also state that in the vehicles country of origin (France), it was licensed as a semitrailer and not considered a motor vehicle.

Chapter 301 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles. Section 30102(a)(6) of that chapter defines "motor vehicle" as:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line.

We have issued a number of letters addressing this language. We have stated that vehicles equipped with tracks, agricultural equipment, and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. We have also determined that certain vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not motor vehicles, even if they may be operationally capable of

highway travel. Also, vehicles are not motor vehicles if they were designed to be used primarily at off-road job sites and, although capable of being operated on public roads from one job site to another, their on-road use is infrequent and incidental to the primary purpose for which they were manufactured (e.g., mobile cranes).

In our previous determinations that vehicles were designed primarily for use off-road, the work-oriented equipment was integral to the design of the vehicle, i.e., the mobility-oriented characteristics of the vehicle reflected the off-road use of the vehicle. For example, in a recent letter to Ms. Melissa A. Burt (March 21, 2005), we noted that the vehicle in question had a lower speed differential than that commonly found on vehicles manufactured for use on public roads, which permitted slow, consistent operating speeds necessary for its off-road use. Further, that vehicles engine was equipped with a front or rear end power takeoff that can run the mixers machinery in the farmers field. The vehicle discussed in the Burt letter was determined not be a motor vehicle as its characteristics, without respect to the work-oriented equipment, demonstrated that the vehicle was not manufactured primarily for use on public roads.

You state that the trailer your client is seeking to import contains bottling equipment, which is intended to be used off-road, i.e., at wineries. However, at issue is the vehicle and not the equipment transported by the vehicle. The characteristics of the trailer you described in your letter, aside from the bottling equipment housed in the trailer, are indistinguishable from trailers manufactured primarily for use on public roads. In your letter, you further state that the vehicle is classified as a "semitrailer" in its country of origin. We note that the definition of "motor vehicle" extends to vehicles that do not have engines, i.e., those that are drawn by mechanical power. "Semitrailer" is specifically defined as a class of motor vehicles in 49 CFR 571.3.

Based on the above discussion we would classify the vehicle your client is seeking to import as a "motor vehicle".If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Assistant Chief Counsel
for Vehicle Safety Standards and Harmonization

ref:571
d.8/10/05

ID: 86-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David E. Martin -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, GM

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Steed concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.

You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of the requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of "seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly" at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.

You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existing language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard no. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.

You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since an owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 205. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 201's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.

Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additional anchorages is not minimal. You said that "the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints."

While we believe that you have raised a number of important issues concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency his consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as "a strap, webbing, or similar device" used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 203. a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides "pelvic and upper torso restraint." Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.

The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts and automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used "in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by" S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by 54 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that "an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be uses...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option."

Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, we believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

USG 2421

July 30, 1985

The Honorable Diane Steed Administrator -- NHTSA

Docket 74-14, Notice 38

Dear Ms. Steed:

General Motors is currently developing new vehicle models which will be introduced concurrent with, or after, the start of the passive restraint phase-in period. This has necessitated a review of NHTSA FMVSS interpretations as they would apply to seat belt restraint systems. It is apparent from that review that several previous NHTSA interpretations do not comprehend current automatic seat belt technology.

Of specific concern to General Motors is NHTSA documentation which suggests that automatic seat belts are experimental and, therefore, not "Type 2" seat belts for the purposes of S4.1.1. of FMVSS 210. Without assurance that the position set forth in these NHTSA documents is no longer considered current by the agency, a manufacturer is faced with the prospect of having to add manual seat belt anchors into a vehicle even though automatic seat belts are to be installed.

1 A NHTSA position that additional manual belt anchors were necessary because of the "experimental" nature of automatic seat belts was first noted in Docket 72-23, Notice 5 (43 FR 53440, dated November 27, 1978) which granted a petition by General Motors to exempt automatic belts from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210. Most recently, the agency in its January 29, 1985 response to a letter from the Daihatsu Motor Company regarding the redundant anchor requirement reiterated that, "The exemption was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs."

While NHTSA's position that automatic seat belts are "experimental" was perhaps appropriate in 1978, we believe that a change is warranted in light of design developments and recent regulatory initiatives. Significant field experience has been gained over the last decade with automatic belt designs, e.g. the VW Rabbit and GM Chevette. In addition, FMVSS 208 rulemaking responses suggest that many manufacturers are currently developing such belt systems in anticipation of the passive restraint requirements. Finally, concern for public reaction to automatic seat belts, which is basic to the agency's use of the term "experimental" was discounted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in its July 17, 1984 final rule (Docket 74-14, Notice 36). Noting that most, if not all manufacturers, would be expected to use detachable automatic seatbelts, DOT stated that, "Detachable belts should alleviate some consumer concerns about automatic belts."

The aforementioned NHTSA letters of interpretation notwithstanding, there is existing regulatory language which General Motors believes supports a position that S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 is satis-fied if a passenger car is equipped with any belt restraint system meeting the performance requirements of FMVSS 208. Most compelling is the fact that the definition of a "Type 2" belt assembly, as set forth in S3 of FMVSS 209, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints. The definition does not differentiate between manual and automatic belt systems. Further, S4.3 (j) of FMVSS 209 states that the requirements of that section apply to Type 1 and Type 2 belt systems. This has been interpreted by the agency to include both manual and automatic seat belt systems. (See NHTSA letter of interpretation to Volkswagon, dated August 7, 1981.)

A review of FMVSS 210 regulatory history also supports a position that seat belt performance is neither assured nor necessarily limited by anchor locations. While vehicles equipped with manual belts meeting the existing anchorage location requirements of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 210 have demonstrated excellent performance in the field, this experience should not be interpreted as establishing that other anchorage locations would not have produced equally good results. In fact a parametric study by General Motors, which was provided to NHTSA in 1979 (USG 1763), suggests that specific vehicle interior parameters, such as occupant proximity to steering columns, instrument panel, etc., could have more influence on measured dummy data than some of the restraint parameters. A copy of that study is attached.

While the above discussion deals with the regulatory aspects of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210, there are additional compelling reasons for a new interpretation of that section. These reasons are based on practical implications as well as recent rulemaking actions that bear on the existing interpretations.

Most importantly, the redundant anchors would very likely never be used. It is highly improbable that a customer would demand an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door anchored belt were available from the manufacturer as a replacement for the OEM automatic seat belt. This would be true whether or not the passive restraint requirements were eventually rescinded. As noted in General Motors' response to Docket 74-14; Notice 36 (USG 2284), automatic seat belt designs would need to be detachable to ensure public acceptability. As a result, a detachable automatic seat belt design would also be usable as a manual seat belt. (See Attachment 6 of USG 22B4). This "convertibility" feature would be expected to further reduce the likelihood of replacement.

The redundant seat belt anchor issue is clouded by NHTSA's recent manual belt dynamic test proposal in Docket 74-14, Notice 38. If enacted, that proposal would provide manual belts with the same exemption from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210 now afforded automatic belts. This would allow manufacturers to find an optimum anchor location for manual belt systems on the basis of best overall performance. With this scenario, the S4.1.1 requirement in FMVSS 210 becomes even more inappropriate in that it may not reflect a belt anchor location needed to meet the FMVSS 208 injury criteria.

General Motors is concerned that cost factors may have been understated and this may have misled NHTSA regarding the need for a review of the current S4.1.1 interpretation. This is suggested by the agency's denial of a 1981 Toyo Kogyo petition (46 FR 54391) wherein it was stated that, ".the cost increase associated with these additional anchorages is minimal at best". The cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned, assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.

In summary, it is General Motors view that the requirements of S4.1.1 in FMVSS 210 would be satisfied by the vehicle seat belt anchors utilized by any belt restraint system that meets the performance requirements of FMVSS 208 and requests that the agency issue an interpretation to that effect. That interpretation would acknowledge that a three-point automatic belt qualifies as a Type 2 belt; therefore, additional anchors would not be required. If such interpretation is not possible, General Motors requests notification of that fact and further requests that this letter be treated as a petition for amendment of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 in a manner which supports General Motors view, as set forth above.

Sincerely,

David E. Martin, Director Automotive Safety Engineering cc: B. Felrice G. Hunter S. Esch Docket 74-14, Notice 38

ID: nht74-5.47

DATE: 04/22/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: American Safety Equipment Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of August 3, 1973, petitioning for amendments to paragraphs S4.9 and S5.3.1 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213 which would allow the use of a buckle release mechanism design that requires, before release, some foreshortening of the belt system to reduce the load on the release mechanism. This design cannot meet the existing requirements of S4.9 of Standard No. 213 with the device under load. We wrote to you on August 20, 1973, and on December 17, 1973, requesting additional data. We have not received a response from you to either letter.

We have decided that your petition should be denied. Our objection to the design you wish to employ is that it cannot be released when the belt restraint system is under load. The NHTSA believes, and has adopted its position in Standard No. 213, that a fundamental safety requirement for any occupant restraint release mechanism is the ability to release when it is under a load imposed by the weight of the occupant. In many vehicle crashes restraint systems may be loaded in this fashion when occupants must be removed.

We do not disagree with your argument that mechanisms which release under load may more readily be released by children when release is undesirable. We believe the greater safety problem, however, is presented by designs which are difficult to operate because they require a prior unloading of the release mechanism. These systems may not be able to be released, even by adults, in crash situations. Data we have received indicates substantial difficulty in the ability of adults to release a child from a child seat in situations (total darkness) simulating emergencies. The study in question has been conducted by the National Swedish Road and Traffic Research Institute and is on file in Docket No. 2-15.

Moreover, we believe buckle release mechanisms should be operable by older child occupants, particularly in situations such as in upside-down configurations where a load is imposed on the mechanism. This purpose is met by the existing requirements of the standard but would not be met were we to grant your petition.

In your petition you argue that even a lower release force does not necessarily mean that the occupant will be able to escape easily from the restraint system. While this may be true, as no requirements are specified in Standard No. 213 regarding ease of belt removal, it is not a justification for increasing the difficulty of operating the buckle release mechanism.

SINCERELY

August 3, 1973

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Subject: Petition for Rule Making

Reference: MVSS213, S4.9 and S5.3.1

American Safety Equipment Corporation is a major developer and manufacturer of safety belt restraint systems for automobile manufacturers. American Safety personnel have a great deal of experience designing aircraft and automotive restraint systems, particularly hardware such as buckles, retractors and associated items. The Company has been active since 1966 in the business of designing and producing restraint harnesses and complete seating systems for children in the 20 to 40 pound size range. The Company has been working on development of a new child safety seat since 1970 basing the basic design criteria on dynamic performance under simulated crash testing, while also observing the current static testing regulation. Final testing of prototype models has been completed on the design considered optimum for performance, economy and simplicity of use.

This petition is submitted in accordance with the procedure described in Subpart B Section 553.31. This proposal is to add a performance requirement and test procedure for an occupant harness release mechanism not currently considered by the Child Seating Systems regulation. The mechanism is not of a nature normally classified or described as a "buckle", but for purposes of MVSS213, is being considered a release mechanism.

The proposed additions and revisions to MVSS213 are shown underlined:

S4.9 (b) Release when a force of not more than 20 pounds is applied when tested in accordance with S5.3 expect for systems described by S4.9 (c).

2 (c) Release when a force of not more than 10 pounds is applied when the release mechanism requires foreshortening of the webbing restraint components to activate and is tested in accordance with S5.3.1 (d).

S5.3.1 For forward-facing child seating systems where foreshortening of the webbing restraint components is not required by the release mechanism -

(a) -- unchanged --

(b) -- unchanged --

(c) -- unchanged --

When foreshortening of the webbing restraint components is required to actuate the release mechanism -

(d) Test the system with a 1,000-pound force as specified in S5.1, remove the force completely and then release the mechanism in a manner typical of that employed in actual use.

Photographs are enclosed showing the release mechanism actuation under normal and simulated emergency conditions and a typical testing set-up to determine release force. The application of force to release the occupant harness must simultaneously pull down on the abdominal pad and the shoulder straps thereto attached and upwards under the metal latch. This is very simply described as a "pinching" action of the thumb and first and/or second finger. The shoulder straps are thereby foreshortened and the occupant will be forced rearward (unless lifted or pushed) toward the back surface of the child seat. The hand not activating the release mechanism can be used to move the child's torso away from contact with the restraint straps. The actuation of the release mechanism with the belts in a slackened condition is an easy one-hand operation with a low force requirement.

The performance criteria on which our restraint release mechanism design is based are as follows:

1. The mechanism must be capable of restraining the occupant when the system undergoes dynamic forces of an auto crash without distortion of any kind which could result in a jammed or difficult-to-release condition.

2. Child must not be able to easily release himself.

3. The mechanism must be extremely easy to understand from the standpoint of an adult learning how to actuate. Similarity to current production adult safety belt hardware assures the shortest possible learning time by an adult.

3 These criteria were formulated after studying field experience of consumers and consulting with experienced people in various phases of the child and adult restraint business. This experience indicated to us that -

1. A common possible problem with many child seat harness buckle release mechanisms is that the release mechanisms could be easily actuated by the child occupant. The child is protected only while sitting in the seat with the harness secured.

2. Emergency removal of a child occupant from a wrecked automobile should be accomplished within a minimum time. Emergency removal always involves supporting at least a portion of the child's weight while releasing the harness mechanism. After an accident the child's weight is forced against the restraining straps if the car has overturned or if the car seat back is exerting pressure on the child and/or child's seating system.

3. Restraint harness buckles which have a low release force (even under occupant's weight load) may not completely detach all components of the harness system from the occupant. Such components as shoulder and/or lap belts may remain wholly or partially attached to the buckle and could interfere with the removal of the occupant from the seating system.

Much subjective information from consumers was also evaluated by us to finalize the release mechanism design since it is considered one of the key components of the overall child seating system. Real-world data is scarce on crash performance of child restraint systems, but accident experience is reasonably hypothesized from experience with children and emergency post-crash situations. It is considered reasonable by us that release mechanisms which actuate under the test procedures now in effect are likely to be released wholly or partially be a child prior to a crash. Protection in low speed, as well as high speed crashes, is important and a securely fastened harness is mandatory for protection. Driver distraction by unrestrained children can also cause accidents which is minimized by a release mechanism not easily operable by the child. Supporting the child's weight or otherwise relieving pressure of the child's body from the harness webbing during emergency removal is consistent with a majority of conceivable accident conditions and always would be a requirement with the impact-shield type restraints (no harness) where the occupant would be expected to be wrapped around the impact shield after a crash. Self-removal from a harness restraint under emergency conditions by a child in the 20 to 40 pound age group

4 is not reasonable unless the child is taught expressly for this purpose. In such a case, training in body articulation and hardware manipulation is probably difficult for the proposed release mechanism.

American Safety is planning procurement of the necessary tooling for manufacturing the child seat design incorporating the proposed release mechanism. The proposed child restraint release mechanism and release procedure is nearly identical to the release of the detachable shoulder harness pin-connector in production for adult restraints in certain cars for three years. The pin and plastic grommet used on the child restraint mechanism proposed are parts produced for several different 1973 model cars. The Company requests the addition of the proposed requirements to MVSS213 to permit it to manufacture and sell the child restraint product.

Gordon M. Bradford Vice President, Corporate Development

enclosures

(Graphics omitted)

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 1

Restraint release mechanism -- This general view shows the similarity to the established pin and connector design now in production for shoulder belts on adult restraints. The two straps above the release mechanism are adjustable upper torso restraints. The release mechanism is affixed to the abdominal pad and the adjustable crotch strap is sewn permanently to the release mechanism connector.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 2

Release mechanism activation -- The initial step in activating the release is as shown. The thumb depresses the abdominal pad and foreshortens the upper torso restraints. The index finger or middle finger holds up the connector while the pin is forced downward.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 3

Release mechanism activation -- The completion of the releasing operation shows the pin and grommet now moved downward into the enlarged opening of the connector where it is completely separated from the crotch strap and connector. A slight forward pull with the finger finishes the release. The connector is then dropped and the abdominal pad with upper torso straps attached is swung upward over the occupant's head for removal when the seat is situated in a normal horizontal attitude.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 4

Release force requirements -- A possible form of measurement device which operates the release mechanism in a manner typical of that employed in actual use is shown. This test would be performed after the child seating system had been subjected to a static load of 1,000 lbs in accordance with MVSS213, S5.1. Following this the release force test would be done in accordance with the proposed procedure S5.3.1(d).

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 5

The position illustrated simulates a nose-down car attitude. The child's full weight is resting on the harness. The adult is about to release the harness.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 6

The adult has pushed upward with her left hand on the abdominal pad. This slackens the crotch strap allowing normal operation of the buckle with her right hand. The load required to release the buckle in this way is no greater than normal.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 7

The buckle has opened and the adult has begun to lower the child. The abdominal pad has slid naturally from her left to her right hand. Her left hand continues to support the abdomen.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 8

The adult's right hand continues to guide the abdominal pad while the left hand continues to support the abdomen. The crotch strap is completely clear of the child.

PHOTOGRAPH NO. 9

The child is out of the harness and is now on what would be either the car's dash or front seat back, depending on where the child seat was installed in the vehicle. The harness is clear of the child. No force greater than the child's weight was exerted. There were no "practice" runs after instructions on how to correctly release the child were given to the Mother.

ID: aiam3454

Dear Mr. Adduci: On June 5, representatives of MVMA met with representatives of thi agency to discuss various issues concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115. At that meeting, the MVMA representatives requested clarification of the agency's policy on correction of errors made by vehicle manufacturers in their vehicle identification numbers (VIN's). This letter responds to that request.; The agency shares your concern about the potential difficultie associated with correcting erroneous VIN's and will attempt to minimize the burdens involved with any required corrective action. Nevertheless, the agency must consider the safety benefits of an accurate, national VIN system, as well as the anti-theft and other benefits of such a system.; This letter focuses on some of the most likely VIN errors and discusse whether those errors in vehicles sold to consumers would be inconsequential as the errors relate to safety, and, if not, what type of remedy would have to be provided to vehicle owners. Corrective action involving the replacing of an erroneous VIN plate or label or the restamping of the VIN on part of the vehicle is the most desirable remedy. However, there may be less burdensome remedies that would be effective and satisfy the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.; One type of error which could be easily corrected is an error in single VIN character other than the check digit or a character monitored by VIN users. The agency would likely regard such an error as inconsequential if the vehicle manufacturer submitted the necessary corrected decoding information to the agency. The agency would place this information in a public file, thereby making it available to other VIN users. With this corrected decoding information available, the agency's safety research activities would not be impaired and manufacturers would still be able to conduct recall campaigns where necessary.; A second type of error involves an erroneous check digit or othe character monitored by vehicle records systems of States or other VIN users. Erroneous check digits could adversely affect our ability to conduct research and to monitor recalls, since the error rate of VIN transcription would presumably be higher in the absence of a properly functioning check digit. Further, without some form of corrective action by the manufacturer (such as restamping or the use of a correction label), vehicle purchasers could face rejections by State, insurance, and other data-processing systems using the check digit to verify transcription accuracy. However, the agency is also concerned that the use of labels could create opportunities for auto theft operations to generate bogus VIN's. Therefore, the agency is presently inclined to treat erroneous check digits as inconsequential noncompliance if the manufacturer reports the errors to the agency. However, as discussed below, the agency is planning to invite public comment on this question before establishing a final position on the matter.; A third type of error involves the physical aspects of the VIN itself For example, a manufacturer might use a type face other than the sans serif type face required by the standard. Although errors of this type would have to be resolved on a case-by-case basis, they would likely be deemed inconsequential because they would present no problems to the agency, other VIN users, or vehicle owners.; The most difficult type of errors would involve a major error i numbering which would impair the safety and other uses of the VIN. An extreme example of such an error would be a situation where a manufacturer numbered many of its vehicles identically, or where the VIN's were totally illegible. An error of that magnitude could impair the manufacturers' (sic) ability to conduct recall campaigns and the ability of the agency to monitor them. It would also cause serious problems for all VIN users. In this type of situation (which should arise rarely, if ever), some form of corrective action would be necessary. The use of a correction label which meets all requirements of FMVSS 115 including indelibility would be one possible approach.; One final matter discussed at the June 5 meeting relates to th correction of VIN errors on vehicles already produced but still in the possession of the manufacturer. We would treat these vehicles the same as the vehicles already sold, i.e., if the noncompliance were inconsequential for the vehicles already sold, it would also be inconsequential for the vehicles produced but still in the manufacturer's possession. However, the agency would expect that once the error is detected, similar vehicles produced thereafter would fully comply with the standard. There is precedent for this approach, since the agency has previously treated as inconsequential noncompliance erroneous identification numbers on tires still in the manufacturer's possession, where an inconsequentiality petition has been granted with respect to tires already sold.; The agency will issue in the near future a notice inviting comment o MVMA's petition to change Standard 115 to a general regulation. In this notice, we will seek comment on the types of corrective action discussed above. If you have any thoughts on other means of making these types of corrections, we would of course be pleased to receive your views.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: aiam5631

"Dear Mr. Bode: This responds to your letter concerning whether 4 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. (formerly the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act) requires a motor vehicle manufacturer to ensure that its vehicle continues to comply with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) after the first retail purchase of the vehicle. You specifically ask about FMVSS No. 124, 'Accelerator Control Systems,' and its application to a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck. It appears from the questions you ask that corrosion developed inside the carburetor of the pickup truck at some point during the life of the vehicle, such that the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of Standard No. 124. You asked us to 'confirm the accuracy' of a number of statements. Your first statement, concerning the application of the FMVSSs generally, is as follows: As we understand it, former 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. 30112(a), prohibits any person from manufacturing, selling or introducing into commerce any new motor vehicle unless the vehicle is in conformity with all applicable FMVSS. However, the Safety Act further provides that the requirement that a vehicle comply with all applicable FMVSS does not apply after the first purchase for purposes other than resale, i.e., the first retail sale of the vehicle. Safety Act former 108(b)(1), 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(1). After the first retail sale, the only provision in the Safety Act that affects a vehicle's continuing compliance with an applicable FMVSS is set forth in former 108(a)(2)(A), 49 U.S.C. 30122(b), which prohibits certain persons from knowingly rendering inoperative a device installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Your general understanding is correct. However, a manufacturer has responsibilities in addition to those in 30112, that may bear upon on 'continuing compliance' of its vehicle. Under 30118-30122 of our statute, each motor vehicle manufacturer must ensure that its vehicles are free of safety-related defects. If NHTSA or the manufacturer of a vehicle determines that the vehicle contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer must notify purchasers of the defective vehicle and remedy the problem free of charge. This is not to say that the development of the corrosion in the carburetor necessarily constitutes a safety-related defect. Rather, we acknowledge the possibility of such a finding in certain circumstances, such as where the corrosion developed unreasonably quickly in the vehicle and the problem was such that it could lead to crashes involving injuries or fatalities. State law could also be relevant to this issue. For example, as part of its vehicle inspection requirements, a State could require that the accelerator control systems on vehicles 'continue to comply' with the requirements of Standard No. 124. With the above discussion in mind, I will now address your other four questions on Standard No. 124. Question 1. We ask that NHTSA confirm that FMVSS 124 is a standard that a given vehicle must comply with only at the time of the first retail sale of the vehicle. As explained in our answer above, your understanding is correct with regard to our requirements (49 U.S.C. 30112). There may be State requirements that apply. Question 2. We ask NHTSA to confirm that if a carburetor installed in a 1988 Dodge Ram 50 pickup truck met all the requirements of FMVSS 124 at the time of the truck's first retail sale, but, after the sale, due to in-service conditions, corrosion developed inside the carburetor so the carburetor would not return to idle in accordance with the requirements of S5.1, S5.2, and S5.3 of FMVSS 124, that circumstance would not render the vehicle in violation of FMVSS 124. Your understanding is essentially correct. As permitted by Federal law, Chrysler sold the truck based upon its own certification of compliance with FMVSS No. 124. That corrosion developed in the system may or may not be relevant with respect to the existence of a safety-related defect. Question 3. We ask NHTSA to confirm that all of the performance standards imposed by FMVSS 124 are contained in S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3 of FMVSS 124 and that S2 headed PURPOSE does not impose any separate regulatory obligation beyond those contained in S5. While your understanding is essentially correct, note that Standard No. 124 and other motor vehicle safety standards are minimum performance standards. Question 4. We ask you to confirm that the performance standard set forth in FMVSS 124 does not contain any requirement relating to durability or corrosion resistance. Standard No. 124 does not specify a test for corrosion resistance. It is unclear what you mean by 'durability.' The requirements of the standard must be met when the engine 'is running under any load condition, and at any ambient temperature between -40 F. and +125 F. ....' (S5) In addition to the performance regulated by Standard No. 124, each manufacturer must ensure that its motor vehicle does not have a safety-related defect. If you have any questions about the information provided above, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";

ID: aiam5342

"Dear Ms. Semo: This responds to your request for NHTSA's determinatio that certain former East German military trucks, ZIL model 131, are not motor vehicles, and exempt from the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). We are unable to make such a determination. As explained below, a ZIL model 131 truck imported into the United States is considered a 'motor vehicle' for purposes of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act)(15 U.S.C. 1391 et seq.), and is subject to the FMVSS. Your letter explained that a client plans to import over 500 ZIL model 131 trucks into the U.S. Apparently, your client plans to modify the trucks in the U.S. to use for nonmilitary purposes. Your client intends to send most of the modified trucks to buyers in other countries, but plans to sell some of the trucks in the U.S. Your letter states: '... S ome ZIL vehicles may be modified to meet DOT/NHTSA and EPA standards in order to satisfy those buyers who require vehicles conforming to those standards.' Under the Safety Act, any 'motor vehicle,' whether new or used, that is imported into the United States for sale in this country must be brought into conformity with all FMVSS that applied at the time of its manufacture. The question that must be answered is whether the ZIL 131 trucks, at the time of importation, would be considered 'motor vehicles.' 'Motor vehicle' is defined at section 102(3) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1391(3)) as: A ny vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails. NHTSA has interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold only for off-road use (such as airport runway vehicles and underground mining devices) are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel. Vehicles that have an abnormal body configuration that readily distinguishes them from other highway vehicles and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour (mph) are not considered motor vehicles, because their use of the public roads is intermittent and incidental to their primary intended off-road use. On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, a utility vehicle like the Jeep is plainly a motor vehicle, even though it is equipped with special features to permit off-road operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a 'motor vehicle.' Further, the agency has determined that a vehicle such as a dune buggy is a motor vehicle if it is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicle is to be operated. Applying the above criteria, and based on the information in your letter, the ZIL model 131 trucks are motor vehicles. You state that potential U.S. buyers would require vehicles that meet the FMVSS. This suggests that U.S. vehicle owners intend to use the ZIL model 131 trucks as they would other motor vehicles, on the public roads. Judging from your photographs, the trucks do not have abnormal body configurations that distinguish them from other vehicles on the road. You stated that the trucks have a top speed of almost 50 miles per hour, a speed suitable for public roads. These facts suggest that the ZIL model 131 truck is designed and intended to be routinely used on the public roads, and should be classified as a motor vehicle. Assuming your client is still interested in importing the ZIL 131 trucks for resale in the U.S., the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act requires that the agency determine that the vehicles are capable of conversion to meet the FMVSS, and that the trucks be imported by a 'registered importer.' The agency makes determinations upon the basis of a petition by the manufacturer or registered importer (or upon its own volition). A 'registered importer' is one whom NHTSA has recognized as capable of converting vehicles to meet the FMVSS. If you would like further details on eligibility determinations and import procedures, please let us know and we shall be pleased to provide them. The Safety Act also addresses trucks your client wishes to import into the U.S. for modification for export. Under section 108(b)(3) of the Safety Act, the FMVSSs do not apply to vehicles intended solely for export. Thus, trucks brought into the U.S. for modification for export are not subject to the FMVSSs. Under 49 CFR 591.5, the importer would file a declaration under 591.5(c), that the vehicle does not comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety, bumper, and theft prevention standards, but is intended solely for export. I hope that this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, John Womack Acting Chief Counsel";