ID: 77-5.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 4, 1977 letter asking whether Standard No. 118 Power-Operated Window Systems, prohibits the operation of power windows when the ignition key is in the "Accessories" position.

Standard No. 118 requires only that power windows be inoperable when the key is in the "off" position or is removed from the lock, with certain exceptions outlined in S3. It is permissible for the windows to operate normally when the key is in the "Accessories" position.

SINCERELY,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

October 4, 1977

Joseph J. Levin Office of the Chief Counsel NHTSA

This letter is to ask for your interpretation concerning FMVSS 118 "Power-operated Window Systems".

S.3 of that standard requires that no power-operated window or partition shall be movable when the ignition key is in an off position or is removed from the lock.

In the case of the 5-position ignition switch as shown in the attachment, should the power-operated windows not be movable when the ignition key is in an "Acc" (Accessories) position?

Thank you for your attention to the above matter. We look forward to hearing your reply of the above in the near future.

Tokio Iinuma Staff Safety -- ENGINEERING OFC. OF NORTH AMERICA

Ignition switch

The 5-position ignition switch is located on the right side of the steering column. The switch includes the antitheft steering lock device and also controls the ignition system and most of the electrical equipment:

"LOCK" Normal parking position The ignition key can be inserted and removed at the "LOCK" position only. The steering can be locked by turning the key to the "LOCK" position, removing it, and rotating the steering wheel until the locking plunger clicks into position.

To unlock the steering, insert the key and turn it to the "OFF" position. For easier key operation when unlocking, rotate the steering wheel slightly to relieve pressure on the steering lock.

"OFF"

This position permits turning the engine off without locking the steering wheel.

"ACC" (Accessories)

This position allows you to use all the electrical accessories controlled by the switch.

"ON" Normal operating position

This position turns on the ignition system and electrical circuits.

"START"

This position starts the engine. After the engine has started, release the key. It will automatically return to the "ON" position.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-5.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/30/77

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

TO: W. G. Milby

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 14, 1977, letter asking about the applicability of the requirements of Standard 217, Bus Window Retention and Release, to roof exits which use lexan or other glazing materials as part of their structure.

You first ask whether these exits would be required to comply with the standard's window retention test. Section S5.1 of the standard requires that each piece of window glazing and each surrounding window frame comply with the requirements of the window retention test. Since the lexan to which you refer is glazing material, a structure using such material would be required to comply with the window retention test.

In a second question, you ask whether this type of exit can employ a release mechanism that consists of a gasket filler strip. This gasket releases the exit when pulled, by a single force, in a direction perpendicular to the exit. Since the application of force required to release the exit is in the proper direction as established by S5.3.2 of the standard, the exit would appear to comply with the exit release requirements as long as the release mechanism is within the correct force application zone and requires the proper amount of energy to effect its release.

ID: 77-5.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: COBEC Brazilian Trading & Warehousing Corp. of the U.S.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1977, to Mr. Armstrong of this agency regarding the Puma kit car import program. Although your letter is not clear, you appear to be seeking an interpretation as to the applicability of our regulations to the Puma and its proper classification for import into the United States.

FACTS

Our opinion is based upon the factual representations made in your letter, in the advertising brochure issued by Puma Kit Cars, Inc., and an article "Brazilian Puma" by Thos. L. Bryant which appeared in the October 1977 issue of Road & Track (pp. 112-13). As we understand it, Pumas are shipped to the United States both as complete vehicles and in kit form. The completed vehicles are imported and sold by a Kansas firm. The kit vehicles on the other hand are imported by COBEC and sold to Puma Kit Cars, Inc. for further sale to individual purchasers.

The manufacturing operations that occur to the Puma kit car before it is exported are reported by Road & Track as:

"For normal production, Puma [Brazil] buys the [new VW] floorplan assemblies from the factory and removes 10 in. from its length . . . . All cables and fluid lines are removed and replaced with shorter versions. The modified chassis is then fed into the assembly line and if the final unit is to be sold locally, a finished car emerges from the other end. For those slated for export to the U.S. a few steps are left out. These consist of the installation of the front and rear ends and the engine. Aside from these omissions the completed cars are identical."

The completeness of the initial manufacturing process is highlighted in the Puma Kit Car Inc., brochure:

The Puma kit car is complete in every sense of the word: body, special floor pan, wiring, gas tank, rear torsion, steering wheel, tinted safety glass, roll up windows and plush upholstery. All you require in addition to the Puma kit is a VW ball joint front end, swing axle transmission, VW or Porsche engine, wheels, tires, and a battery."

The missing components are available from Puma Kit Car according to the brochure:

"In addition to the basic Puma Kit, complete factory engines, front end assemblies including disc brakes and brand new transaxle assemblies are available. You can assemble a new Puma car from off the shelf factory parts." CLASSIFICATION OF THE PUMA KIT CAR FOR IMPORTATION

COBEC commercial invoices of July 1977 show that Puma kit cars have been identified as "Replacement Body GTE for Volkswagen 1966" and "Replacement Chassis for Volkswagen 1966." The merchandise appears invariably identified as replacement equipment for 1966 Volkswagens.

As the Federal motor vehicle safety standards did not apply to passenger cars and equipment until January 1, 1968, it appears that COBEC is attempting to argue that the merchandise is not subject to Federal regulation under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But generally Federal standards covering replacement equipment apply as of the date the equipment is manufactured. Therefore, any item of motor vehicle equipment supplied in the Puma kit that is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard (e.g. headlamps, glazing) must comply with it.

RESPONSIBILITY OF COBEC AS IMPORTER OF THE PUMA KIT CARS

If an equipment item does not comply, Pumas must be entered pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(iii) as nonconforming motor vehicle equipment that will be brought into compliance before being offered for sale, and COBEC is responsible for submission of compliance documentation under 19 CFR 12.80(b)(2)(iii).

I hope that this is responsive to your request.

SINCERELY,

September 20, 1977.

Francis Armstrong, Director Office of Standards Enforcement Motor Vehicle Programs NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation

RE: PUMA KIT CAR IMPORT PROGRAM

With reference to the above-mentioned program we would like to express our opinion that these kits are in every way incomplete cars and, therefore, we so classified them on your Special Customs Invoice.

As per your request and for your own evaluation we enclose pictures as well as the following pertinent technical data about our kit car.

1. Our kit car consists of:

- fiber glass body shell,

- metal floor pan,

- AS1 safety glass (U.S. approved windshield),

- AS2 tempered glass, side and rear windows, - full set of dash control instruments,

- one set of seal beam headlights, (General Electric), U.S. made,

- one set of tale lights (U.S. approved).

2. Optional items:

- Seats and safety steering wheel.

3. Our vehicles do not include the following items:

- wheels,

- tires,

- front and rear axle,

- differential,

- transmission,

- motor,

- suspension components,

- steering components,

- break components,

- gas system,

- heating system.

These kits are intended to the sale to "DO IT YOURSELF MECHANIC" who in turn might have an old Volkswagen. By using components of the vehicle and the kit car it is possible to assemble. Within a time frame of 80 hrs., a small personal 2 (two) passenger car.

Please note that all of the service is accomplished by the owner himself. We feel that this explanation is sufficient for all your requirements, however, in case you need any additional information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, since as of this moment we have ceased all current shipments into the U.S. until your final decision has been reached.

COBEC BRAZILIAN TRADING & WAREHOUSING CORP. OF THE U.S.

Egon Poisl Assistant Treasurer

(Graphics omitted) (Graphics omitted)

ID: 77-5.4

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/12/77

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

TO: Motor Coach Industries Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 27, 1977, with respect to distribution of a service bulletin on the subject of "New Generator Control and Low Air Switch Setting." As your inconsequentiality petition is now pending (Docket No. IP77-14) you have asked whether you may "hold further actions or procedures on [the] two items [discussed] pending the outcome" of the petition.

The NHTSA does not advise manufacturers to withhold corrective action while inconsequentiality petitions are pending. That decision must be made by the manufacturer as an independent exercise of its judgment. However, a company that has filed an inconsequentiality petition is not required to notify and remedy pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act until such time as its petition has been denied. Your service bulletin does not fulfill the requirements of 49 CFR Part 577 and if you issue it now, in the event of the denial of the petition you would be required to notify all owners of vehicles which remain uncorrected.

ID: 77-5.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/16/77

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

TO: Lowe Machine Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 12, 1977, letter asking what regulations apply to you in your capacity as an alterer of motor vehicles.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) promulgates safety standards for motor vehicles. The agency requires persons who alter motor vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale to attach a label to each vehicle indicating that it continues to comply with all applicable safety standards. Therefore, if the modification that you intend to perform occurs prior to the first purchase of the vehicle for purposes other than resale, you would be required to attach such a label. I am enclosing a copy of Part 567, Certification (Volume 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 567) which addresses the responsibilities of vehicle alterers.

If you modify vehicles after their first purchase for purposes other than resale, then you need not attach a certification or alterer's label. However, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) prohibits any repair business, dealer, distributor, or manufacturer from rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. If your manufacturing operation affected the compliance of any aspect of the vehicle with safety standards in effect on the date of the vehicle's manufacture, you would be in violation of the Act and subject to civil penalties prescribed thereunder.

ID: 77-5.6

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/16/77

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

TO: Burley; Smiertka; Swank and Misko P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 6, 1977, letter asking whether the requirements of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) apply to your client, an alterer of motor vehicles. From the description in your letter, it appears that your client intends to alter previously certified vehicles to make them accessible to the handicapped. You ask what, if any, regulations would apply to this alteration.

There are no safety standards applicable to the installation of the devices to which you refer. Your client's responsibility for purposes of compliance with the regulations of the NHTSA would be to ensure that he does not affect the compliance of previously certified vehicles.

If your client modifies certified vehicles prior to their first purchase for purposes other than resale, he would be responsible for ensuring that they continue to comply with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards. The applicable regulation, Part 567, Certification (49 CFR Part 567.7), requires that he attach an alterer's label to each vehicle indicating that the vehicle continues to comply with the safety standards.

If your client modifies vehicles after their first purchase for purposes other than resale, he would not have to attach an alterer's label to them. However, he would not be allowed to render inoperative any device or element of design installed in the vehicle in compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard (Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1397). Thus, whatever manufacturing operation was performed by your client, it would be necessary for him to ensure that all aspects of the vehicle covered by motor vehicle safety standards remain in compliance with those standards.

ID: 77-5.7

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/20/77

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

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David Martin Director of Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Technical Center Warren, Michigan 48090

Dear Mr. Martin:

Please find enclosed a copy of a recent interpretation of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, that may be relevant to your company's compliance efforts. The interpretation clarifies that service brake control modulation by the driver is permissible in evaluating compliance of a vehicle with S5.3.1 of the standard.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. W. E. Whitner

1-3-78 - LCL,RAR,DAM,RLL,DPD,GSB, RJD,MRB,CTT,JWS,RAW,WLW,JLM,WCC,DPR

DEC 20, 1977

Mr. Donald P. Weiher Chief Project Engineer - Safety AM General Corporation 32500 Van Born Road Wayne, Michigan 48184

Dear Mr. Weiher:

This responds to AM General's December 12, 1977, request to know whether modulation of the service brake control is permissible during stopping distance tests of an air-braked vehicle's compliance with S5.3.1 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. Modulation would be employed to prevent lockup of wheels above 10 mph, as required by S5.3.1. The other questions in your letter will be answered separately.

Section 5.3.1 does not limit the type of brake application that may be employed. When a test procedure or condition is not specified, the manufacturer is free to conduct that aspect of the test in any reasonable manner.

In this case, the standard requires compliance in one out of six attempts, which is intended to increase the test driver's familiarity with the vehicle for test purposes. Driver modulation occurs in the real world and is, in the agency's view, a reasonable procedure by which to demonstrate compliance. The normal skill of a test driver is anticipated in compliance testing.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

ID: 77-5.8

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

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

TO: Lucas Industries

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Lucas Industries' November 1, 1977, request that the upcoming passive restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, be amended to provide alternative compliance by means of installation of active lap and shoulder belts equipped with an ignition interlock system.

Section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) provides in relevant part that "No Federal motor vehicle safety standard may . . . provide that a manufacturer is permitted to comply with such standard by means of . . . any safety belt interlock system." (15 U.S.C. 1410b(b)(1)). It is the agency's opinion that this provision operates as a strict prohibition on amendments of Standard No. 208 that would have the effect of permitting compliance by provision of an ignition interlock system. This opinion is confirmed by Conference Report language on @ 125 which states:

No matter what procedure is followed, the conference substitute prohibits the re-establishment of the safety belt interlock system or continuous buzzer as a mandatory or optional motor vehicle safety standard. H.R. Rep. 93-1452, 93rd Cong. 2d Sess at 45 (1974).

In view of this statutory prohibition, Lucas Industries' request for amendment of the upcoming requirements of Standard No. 208 cannot be considered by the agency.

SINCERELY,

Lucas Industries Inc

NOVEMBER 1, 1977

The Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject Petition - Passenger Car Occupant Restraint

The Lucas Electrical Company Limited of Great Britain is, like ourselves, a subsidiary of Lucas Industries Limited.

Lucas Electrical, supported by us, feel that there should be an option to the passive restraint systems mandated in the early 1980's. We believe that, for some people, lap and shoulder belts with ignition interlock would provide a more acceptable alternative to the passive restraint systems presently being planned, and we ask that this option be considered.

A copy of the Lucas Electrical statement is attached.

A J Burgess Vice President (Technical)

cc: JAMES J. BLANCHARD -- HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 22, 1977

Passive Restraint Systems - USA

Now that a regulation has been published requiring progressive introduction of passive restraint systems on new vehicles, it seems to us that the seat belt - ignition interlock system should be reconsidered.

This system had the blessing of NHTSA in terms of safety, who were unsuccessful in their attempts to prevent its withdrawal as a legal requirement in the USA. However, now that passive restraints can be anticipated the reasons for withdrawal of the interlock vanish, based as they were on avoiding the imposition of a requirement which was unpopular in some quarters. Should such a system be re-introduced, there would be no question of imposing it, and free choice could be exercised by any prospective buyer.

Thus, bearing in mind the undoubted safety potential of such a system, we propose that it be re-introduced based on the original technical requirements of NHTSA.

ID: 77-5.9

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 12/21/77

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

TO: Office of Standards Enforcement

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: I have received your November 8, 1977, memorandum questioning the applicability of the performance requirements in Section S5.4 of Standard No. 217 to knock-out rear windows. You suggest that these requirements may apply only to push-out windows, not knock-out windows.

It is our interpretation that the requirements of the standard apply to both push-out and knock-out windows. We realize that this may create some difficulty for purposes of conducting compliance testing since knock-out windows must be reinstalled in order to conduct subsequent tests upon them. Nonetheless, the window should be required to comply with the standard.

ID: 7714

Dale E. Dawkins, Director
Vehicle Compliance and Safety Affairs
Chrysler Corporation
CIMS 414-01-22
12000 Chrysler Drive
Highland Park, MI 48288-0857

Dear Mr. Dawkins:

This responds to your September 4, 1992 letter, in which you notified the agency of your intention to modify the Hybrid III dummies to be used in your company's certification testing for Standard No. 208. You stated your opinion that the Hybrid III test dummy currently specified in 49 CFR Part 572 Subpart E is unacceptable for determining whether vehicles equipped with two-point automatic belt systems comply with the injury criteria in Standard No. 208. This opinion is based on the chest deflection measurements you have obtained, which you characterize as "erroneous, erratic, and nonsensical."

You indicated your belief that the inaccurate measurements arise because the ball on the end of the slider rod of the chest deflection transducer "frequently" will pop out of its guide track. According to Chrysler, this occurs because the rubber bump stops on the dummy's sternum act as a fulcrum to pry the ball on the end of the slider rod out of its guide track during crash tests, during which the two-point torso belt deflects the dummy chest in both the fore-aft and lateral directions.

Chrysler believes that this problem can be solved simply by modifying the thorax of the Hybrid III dummy by moving the rubber bump stops from the specified location on the sternum to the spine box of the dummy. Your letter indicates your belief that such a modification will not affect the calibration or measurement accuracy of the chest deflection transducer or the biofidelity of the Hybrid III thorax. You indicated that Chrysler intends to make this modification to the Hybrid III dummy thorax and use the modified dummy for Chrysler's certification testing of a 1994 model year vehicle for purposes of Standard No. 208.

NHTSA's position on the issue of what steps manufacturers must take before certifying that their vehicles or equipment comply with an applicable safety standard has been often stated and applies with equal force in this situation. The compliance test procedures set forth in Standard No. 208 must be followed by this agency during our compliance testing. In this instance, that means that NHTSA's compliance testing will be conducted using the Hybrid III test dummy specified in Part 572, Subpart E, with the rubber bump stops in the location specified therein.

Manufacturers certifying compliance with the safety standards are not required to follow exactly the compliance test procedures set forth in the applicable standard. In fact, manufacturers are not even required to conduct any actual testing before certifying that their products comply with applicable safety standards. However, to avoid liability for civil penalties in connection with any noncompliance that may be determined to exist, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) requires that the manufacturer exercise "due care" to assure compliance and in making its certification. It may be simplest for a manufacturer to establish that it exercised "due care" if the manufacturer has conducted testing that strictly followed the compliance test procedures set forth in the standard. However, "due care" might also be shown using modified test procedures if the manufacturer could demonstrate that the modifications were not likely to have had a significant impact on the test results. In addition, "due care" might be shown using engineering analyses, computer simulations, and the like.

In this case, then, the relevant issue is not whether Chrysler uses a modified version of the Hybrid III test dummy for its certification testing. Instead, the issue is whether Chrysler can show that it would exercise "due care" despite using a modified Hybrid III test dummy for its certification testing. This agency does not make any determinations as to whether "due care" has been exercised except in the context of an enforcement proceeding. Hence, Chrysler will have to make the initial decision as to whether a certification based on the modified Hybrid III dummy could be made in the exercise of "due care." Your letter states that Chrysler's modifications to the test dummy "will not affect the calibration or measurement accuracy of the chest deflection transducer or biofidelity of the Hybrid III thorax." If Chrysler can demonstrate that these statements are correct, Chrysler may be able to show that it exercised "due care" in connection with the use of the modified Hybrid III dummy.

Of course, a manufacturer that can show it exercised due care would still be subject to the statutory obligation to notify owners and remedy any vehicles that are determined not to conform to Standard No. 208. However, this same obligation would apply even to manufacturers that had conducted testing using an unmodified Hybrid III test dummy.

Turning from Chrysler's particular question to the standard in general, NHTSA notes that it has undertaken research examining the issue of chest deflection measurements by the Hybrid III test dummy. An extensive discussion of the agency research and analysis of this issue may be found in the interim final rule postponing the use of the Hybrid III dummy in vehicles that do not use either seat belts or air bags (55 FR 39280; September 26, 1990; copy enclosed). In that notice, NHTSA indicated that it had received significant data from sources outside the agency, including General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, INRETS (a French government research and development group), and the Motor Industry Research Association (a British group).

The agency would be very interested in examining any data or test results that Chrysler may have on this subject, especially the assertion that the ball on the end of the chest deflection rod comes out of its track during crash test conditions. Please send all such information to: Barry Felrice, NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, Room 5401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you need any further information or have some further questions on this subject.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:208#572#VSA d:10/2/92