ID: 1984-1.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/07/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nr. Karl-Heinx Faber -- Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President, Product Compliance and Service Administration Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

This is in response to your September 14, 1983, letter in which you request that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration confirm that the Unimog vehicle produced by Mercedes-Benz is not a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1391(3). The agency stated in a March 9, 1972, letter that a previous version of the Unimog would not be classified as a "motor vehicle."

The principal differences between the 1972 version of the Unimog and the version expected to be sold in the near future are, based on your representations made in a September 8 meeting with agency staff increases in engine horsepower, gross vehicle weight rating, wheelbase, length, width, height, and certain ground clearance specifications. The anticipated sales level for the vehicle is slightly higher than the past level, as well.

It appears that none of these changes would affect the classification of the Unimog under the Safety Act. Therefore, we conclude that the vehicle is still not a "motor vehicle." This conclusion presumes that the Unimogs would still be marketed, as in the past, principally through farm machinery and heavy equipment dealers, and that the vehicle would have affixed in the cab a label stating that the Unimog is not manufactured for highway use.

Sincerely Original signed by Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel cc: Mr. J. Sonosky Hogan and Hartson 815 Connecticut Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

September 14, 1983

Mr. Frank Berndt 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

Subject: Classification of the Unimog Vehicle

Dear Mr. Berndt:

On March 9, 1972, after a thorough review, NHTSA advised us that the Mercedes-Benz Unimog was not a "motor vehicle" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1391(3) and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The letter also mentioned that the Agency's decision was subject to future review and reconsideration on the basis of any relevant information that might come to its attention.

On September 8, 1983, a meeting took place at the Agency with Messrs. Wood, Shifflet and Fairchild of your staff, Mr. Sonosky of Hogan & Hartson, counsel to MBNA, and members of my staff present. In this meeting, the planned expansion of the Unimog marketing program and technical changes in the vehicle were discussed in detail. A table showing specifications of the new Unimog models we intend to introduce as well as several brochures showing the intended uses of the vehicles were left with your staff. For your convenience, we enclose a duplicate set of that material. The number of models with only minor differences in GVWR and engine horsepower reflects our aim to provide that best suited equipment for each individual use.

In the discussion, your staff expressed interest in obtaining marketing data which would substantiate the off-highway nature of the vehicle as indicated by actual sales and implement applications. Enclosed please find a list of implements and attachments sold with Unimogs from 1975 to this date, the Unimog sales figure for the same period, and a summary of the Unimog use by business.

Other issues raised by your staff include whether the vehicle will continue to be labeled as in the past and sold through a dealer network related to farm machinery and heavy equipment. This is to re-affirm our intention to maintain both practices in our expanded program.

We trust that the information provided to your staff at the meeting, and the information contained in the enclosed material, are sufficient to enable you to maintain the decision expressed in the Agency's letter of March 9, 1972, for the new generation Unimog models which differ in size from the Unimog 900 but which, like their predecessor, were designed as off-road implement carriers and not intended primarily for use on roads and highways.

Since the initiation of our new marketing program is imminent, we respectfully request your expeditious review of this matter. Should you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

Sincerely, Original signed by (?) Enclosure

Implements and attachments sold with Unimogs during Calendar Year 1975 through 1983 by order of sale volume:

QUANTITY IMPLEMENT/ATTACHMENT

150 Snowplow 112 Snowblower/Cutter 80 Backhoe 74 Doser Blade 64 Salt and Sand Spreader 34 Railroad Switcher 32 Front End Loader 24 Three-Point Hitch for Agriculture 23 Broom/Sweeper 23 Mower 18 Crane 24 Winch 11 Digger Derrick/Auger 10 Wood Shredder 9 Western Fire Package 5 Mobil Drill 3 Trencher 2 Man Basket 2 Forklift 2 Cable Plow 2 Dump Bed 1 Tree Spade 1 Sludge Pump 1 Brush Cutter

Comparison Unimog/Attachment Sales (Detail) 1975 - 1983 Ratio Unimog Sales Implement/Attachment Sales Unimog/Attachment 441 697 1 : 1.58

Unimog Use by Business

Federal, State, County and Municipal Departments 39% Contractors 15% Utility and Telephone Companies 11% Airports 10% Railroads 10% Agriculture 7% Others 8% PAGE 37 LEVEL 1 - 12 OF 169 ITEMS

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.)

TEXT:

Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.

The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.

Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.

December 7, 1983

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).

I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress.

I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.

I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager

BDT:csy

ID: 1984-1.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bob D. Troxel -- Vice President and General Manager, J.F. Enterprises Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys (RVI Inc.)

TEXT:

Mr. Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager J. F. Enterprises, Inc. Box 583 Wakarusa, Indiana 46573

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking for a clarification of the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (49 CFR S571.302). Specifically, your company manufactures innerspring mattresses, some of which are used in motor vehicles. You noted that the mattress covers on those mattresses for use in motor vehicles must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, and that you had interpreted the mattress cover to consist only of the covering applied over the finished mattress. Hence, under your interpretation, Standard No. 302 would not apply to the ticking used as the outside of the mattress. However, you were told by several ticking manufacturers that a recent decision by this agency stated that ticking used on mattresses for use in motor vehicles must also satisfy the flammability requirements of the standard. It is correct that the ticking must satisfy Standard No. 302's flammability requirements.

The mattress cover has been interpreted by this agency to include both a covering put over a finished mattress and the permanent mattress ticking since Standard No. 302 became effective. Hence, the information that this was a recent decision by this agency is incorrect. For your information, I have enclosed a 1973 letter to the Recreational Vehicle Institute setting forth this interpretation over ten years ago.

Should you have any other questions about the applicability of Standard No. 302 to your products, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure - 10/15/73 letter from Richard B. Dyson to David J. Humphreys omitted here.

December 7, 1983

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Our company is a manufacturer of innerspring mattresses. A small percentage of our production goes to the Recreational Vehicle Industry. Of this portion of our business a portion goes into Motorized Vehicles (Mini Homes, Motor Homes, etc.).

I am told that you may be able to clarify an item pertaining to how these mattresses are affected by the FMVSS 302 Flammibility Standard. We have been informed that the DOC FF 4-72 Standard that all of our mattresses are manufactured under applies and FMVSS 302 applies only to mattress "covers". The term "cover" we understand applies to a covering applied over the finished mattress and not the ticking used as the outside of the mattress.

I have recently been "told" by several manufacturers of "ticking" that a recent decision has been made that the ticking must meet FMVSS 302 when the finished product is used in a Motorized Vehicle.

I am asking your help in clarifying this question of the FMVSS 302 as it applies to an innerspring (or poly) mattress used in a Motorized Recreational Vehicle.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

Bob D. Troxel Vice President and General Manager

BDT:csy

ID: 1984-1.13

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/13/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J.N. White

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. N. White 1300 California Drive Rolla, MO 65401

This is in response to your January 3, 1984, letter to Roger Fairchild of this office regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111 (Rearview Mirror Systems). You have requested information on the applicability of that standard, particularly in regard to aftermarket mirrors.

FMVSS 111 is a rule or regulation (the terms are generally used interchangeably) establishing requirements for rearview mirrors on new passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, school buses, and motorcycles. Aftermarket mirror manufacturers do not have to certify compliance with our standards. However, the addition of an aftermarket mirror to a motor vehicle may be subject to certain legal requirements. Section 108(a)(2)( A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, or dealer of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or any motor vehicle repair business from knowingly rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on a vehicle in compliance with a safety standard. Thus, manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses cannot remove a rearview mirror installed as original equipment in compliance with our standard and replace that mirror with a noncomplying aftermarket mirror. Replacement by other individuals or organizations or replacement with a complying aftermarket mirror would be permitted.

With regard to your final question as to requirements applicable to the use of non-glare glass in mirrors, this agency issued on November 6, 1978, a notice of proposed rulemaking on possible upgrading of rearview mirror requirements (copy enclosed). One part of this proposal would establish image luminance criteria for rearview mirrors. The agency has not yet determined whether this requirement should be implemented, and no action is imminent on that proposal.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel Enclosure

January 3, 1984

Mr. Roger Fairchild Legal Counsel NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 400 7th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Subject: FMVSS-111 -- Rearview Mirror Systems

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

I have some questions regarding FMVSS-111 and Mr. Kevin Cavey of the Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, suggested that I write to you for the specific answers.

1. Is FMVSS-111 a rule, regulation or law?

2. Does it apply only to new car/truck manufacturers?

3. As far as the sections that apply to rearview mirror systems, specifically convex mirrors, does it apply to "after market" manufacturers, where their product is sold through warehouse distributors, jobbers, mass merchandisers, etc., to the general, public?

4. Is there any pending "legislation" that might prohibit the use of "non-glare" glass in rearview mirrors?

I want to thank you in advance, for your time and efforts in helping me, with the answers to the above questions.

Sincerely,

J.N. White 1300 California Drive Rol1a, MO 65401 cc: J. L. Levenberg & Associates

ID: 1984-1.14

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/28/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: John H. Schmidt -- Certification Supervisor, Harley-Davidson Motor Co. Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/30/76 letter from J. Womack to Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.

TEXT:

John H. Schmidt, P.E. Certification Supervisor Harley-Davidson Motor Co., Inc. 3700 W. Juneau Avenue P.O. Box 653 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

Dear Mr. Schmidt:

This responds to your February 6, 1984 letter to Roger Fairchild of this office, in which you asked whether your company may include on vehicle certification labels gross vehicle weight rating and gross axle weight rating information expressed in kilograms. The metric units would be used in addition to information expressed in pounds, with the English units appearing first on the label and the metric units following in parenthesis. Our certification regulations (49 CFR Part 567) provide that this information is to be specified in pounds.

The inclusion of metric weight ratings in addition to the English units specified in our regulation (with the English units appearing first) has previously been approved in an agency interpretation letter, a copy of which is enclosed. Therefore, your proposed certification labels are authorized under the certification regulations.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure (6/30/76 letter from J. Womack to Toyota omitted here)

February 6, 1984

Dear Mr. Fairchild:

The Harley-Davidson Motor Company would like to add metric equivalents to the vehicle weight ratings on its Certification Labels.

An example of the addition would be the following (sample label attached):

Present Proposed

GVWR: 1085 GVWR 1085 LB (493 KG) GAWR: Front-390 with ... GAWR F 390 LB (177 KG) with ...

GAWR: Rear-695 with ... GAWR R 695 LB (316 KG) with ...

Part 567 seems neither to permit nor to prohibit additional information on the Certification Label. Showing metric equivalents would be helpful in export of our motorcycles and would be consistent with a general objective of reducing international trade barriers.

We would appreciate a statement of concurrence from the Office of Chief Counsel.

Sincerely,

John H. Schmidt, P.E. Certification Supervisor

/pat Attachment

cc: Paul Golde, MIC Walter MacKay, MMIC

ID: 1984-1.15

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Goldstein; Serlin; Grass & Eserow; P.C.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Stuart Goldstein, Esq. Goldstein, Serlin, Grass & Eserow, P.C. 3000 Town Center- Suite 505 Southfield, MI 48075

This is in response to your letter of January 27, 1984, alleging discrimination by the U. S. Customs Service in enforcing regulations governing importation of vehicles that do not meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. You have asked that this agency direct Customs "to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle..."

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) requires that all vehicles imported into the United States be brought into compliance with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of manufacture. The Act does not differentiate between individual and commercial importers. Pursuant to the Act this agency, the Customs Service, and the Department of the Treasury issued an implementing regulation, 19 C.F.R. 12.80. Under this joint regulation, vehicles that do not conform are to be entered under bond for production of a statement within 120 days (an additional 60 available upon request) that all necessary compliance work has been done. Thus, no directive of the nature you ask is needed because under the regulation importers must make all required modification before vehicles are released.

However, in developing the regulation, the issuing agencies took into account the heavy traffic that exists at the Canadian and Mexican borders and the impracticability of requiring a written declaration (Form HS-7) from each person driving a car over the border into the United States. Each district director at Canadian and Mexican border districts was provided discretionary authority (19 C.F.R. 12.80 (f)) to waive the written declaration "for a United States, Canadian or Mexican registered vehicle arriving via land borders" for vehicles manufactured before January 1, 1968, for vehicles conforming to standards except for readily attachable equipment items to be installed before sale, and for vehicles imported by foreign tourists not intending to stay for over a year. No authority, however, was provided to waive the written declaration for vehicles permanently entering the United States that were not in compliance.

We are not aware that Customs officials have been abusing their discretionaly authority at the Canadian border by waiving the declaration requirement and by allowing permanent importation into the United States of vehicles of recent manufacture with speedometers graduated in kilometers rather than miles per hour. However, your client's car must be brought into compliance with this requirement. It should not, however, take six (6) months to resolve safety issues if the speedometer is the only item in question.

If we can help you further, please let us know.

Sincerely,

Fank Berndt Chief Counsel

January 27, 1984

National Highway Transportation Safety Administrator 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTENTION: Chief Counsel RE: 15 U.S. Code 1403 (Pub.L. 89563, Title I, S 114, Sept. 9, 1966, 80 Stat. 726.) (copy attached)

Dear Administrator:

Our office represents a foreign car importer. Because of an erroneous interpretation by my client of the above law, certain vehicles imported were seized by U.S. Customs at Detroit, Michigan. The seized vehicles complied with all E.P.A. Standards. The seized vehicles complied with all D.O.T. Standards with the sole exception that the speedometer registered speed in kilometers per hour, rather than miles per hour as required by D.O.T. Our client, because it desires to comply with the law, is unable to substitute a miles-per-hour speedometer for the kilometers-per-hour speedometer prior to importing the vehicles to the United States. Our client's only option, pursuant to the Customs' requirements as enunciated is to complete a form (HF7) stating that the vehicle does not conform to E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards.

Since the date of enactment of the law in 1966, steps have been taken by all foreign automobile manufacturers to comply with U.S. E.P.A. and D.O.T. Standards for cars capable of being imported into the United States. The policy in effect at Customs if an individual purchased a vehicle with a speedometer registering speed in kilometers-per-hour, allows an individual to bring the vehicle into the United States without stating that the vehicle is non-conforming and without requiring substantial costs and time for conformity. This is discriminatory! At other Customs check points, the relaxed standard allowing importation of vehicles with kilometers-per-hour speedometers has been allowed for business importers as well. This too is discriminatory.

In order to obtain the certificate cf conformity to comply with Customs, there is approximately a six month administrative delay. This delay is unreasonable and costly not only to my client, but to our Government as well.

A Directive from your office to E.P.A., D.O.T. and Customs regardinq the speedometer problem to allow importers to make the speedometer substitution or modification prior to release of the vehicle from Customs, would save substantial Federal time and money. This directive would not affect the manufacturer's certificate as to E.P.A. Standards as the odometer does not relate to the E.P.A. Standards. Since D.O.T. is concerned with safety, the directive as proposed by our office could satisfy all concerned saving both time and money.

If this recommendation is inappropriate, an alternate suggestion by you would be appreciated.

Should you have any questions, please contact me.

Very truly yours,

GOLDSTEIN, SERLIN, GRASS & ESEROW, P.C.

STUART GOLDSTEIN ST:pls cc: The Vice President cf the United States George Bush

ID: 1984-1.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Standards Attache; The French Embassy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. A. Chambord Standards Attache The French Embassy Suite 715 2000 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Chambord:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Steve Katzke of my staff, asking for information on requirements applicable to tire rims for vans. The three points set forth in your letter are correct statements of the requirements, but I will reiterate them to be certain that you provide accurate information.

(1) Vans are considered "motor vehicles other than passenger cars" for the purposes of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars (49 CFR S571.120), and Standard No. 120 sets forth requirements which must be met by all new rims for use on vans. No other standard contains requirements applicable to those rims.

(2) Section S5.2(c) of Standard No. 120 requires the rim manufacturer to permanently label each of its van rims with the letters "DOT" as a certification that the rim satisfies the requirements of Standard No. 120. The manufacturer is expected to exercise due care before making such a certification. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, need be consulted by a manufacturer before certifying the compliance of its rims.

(3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided that the package containing the rims or the van on which the rims are installed bears an appropriate certification label. The only inspections at the port of entry are checks to see that a certification label is attached to the package of rims or the van.

Should you need any further information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 10, 1988

Mr. Steve Kratzke Legal Department Vehicle Systems Group Crash Avoidance Division NHTSA (NRM 11) 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Our reference: NOTEL 273 (NOREX/LNE)

Subject: Tire rims for vans

Dear Mr. Kratzke:

Mr. Arturo Casanova referred me to you for help with NHTSA regulations. In order to ascertain my understanding, would you please send me written confirmation of the following points:

1) Vans are considered "Motor vehicles other than passenger cars" and the only standard applying to van rims is FMVSS No. 120;

2) Certification of compliance to FMVSS No. 120 is conducted by the manufacturer of the rims. No outside inspector, either governmental or privately employed, is required;

3) Rims entering into the United States are not individually inspected, provided the package or the van on which they are installed bears an appropriate certifications label. Are there any inspections at the port of entry?

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

A. CHAMBORD Standards Attache

ID: 1984-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/29/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Services Division United States Testing Company, Inc. 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your letter concerning Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. You asked several questions about the requirements applicable to Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor utilizing a tension reducer device. The particular device you are concerned about is, according to your letter, activated by the vehicle door. With the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode; with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.

By way of background information, this agency does not grant approvals of vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to certify that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Safety Standard No. 209 specifies requirements concerning minimum and maximum retraction force. Requirements are specified for both initial retraction force and retraction force after a test sequence which includes lengthy retractor cycling. See sections S4.3(j), (k) and S5.2(k).

As you know, retractors have traditionally had only one rather than two tension modes. Standard No. 209 does not prohibit a design with two tension modes. However, as written, the standard's requirements do not distinguish between tension modes.

We agree with your suggestion that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in the standard. However, we do not agree with your suggestion that the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force and the low tension mode for maximum retraction force. Instead, because 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. For testing purposes, of course, a single retractor could only be fully tested for one of the two modes, since testing for both modes would involve twice the amount of cycling required by the standard.

Your letter states that since the high tension mode is used only for stowing the webbing and is not in operation during normal use, you believe that only cycling tests without lock-ups should be performed in testing. While we appreciate this argument, the standard, as written, does not permit that exception. Section S5.2(k) states in relevant part:

attached to upper torso restraint shall be subjected to 45,000 additional cycles of webbing withdrawal and retraction between 50 and 100 percent extension. The locking mechanism of an emergency locking retractor shall be actuated at least 10,000 times within 50 to 100 percent extension of webbing during the 50,000 cycles....

Since the standard does not distinguish between tension modes, lock-ups should be performed in testing for both the low and high tension modes.

As already noted, the retractor in question represents a new design which was not specifically considered in drafting Standard No. 209. If the standard as written creates problems, the manufacturer may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend the standard to establish special test procedures.

Your letter suggests that there may be a conflict between section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Standard No. 209's 0.2 pound retraction force requirement (section S4.3(j)). However, section S7.4.2 of Standard No. 208 only applies to automatic belt systems, while section S5.3(j) of Standard No. 209 only applies to active belt systems. Therefore, there can be no conflict.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 12, 1983

Mr. William Smith National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th St., S.W. Room 5320 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Smith:

Some questions have been raised pertaining to the requirements relating to retraction force and lock-up distance on Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractors utilizing a tension reducer device (comfort type mechanism). This particular device is activated by the vehicle door; with the door open the mechanism operates in a high tension mode; with the door closed the mechanism is in a low tension mode.

The purpose of measuring retraction force is to insure that two (2) separate requirements are met.

1. Retraction force is high enough to sufficiently retract the webbing to its normal stowed position (Minimum Requirement).

2. Retraction force is not so high as to cause discomfort to the user (Maximum Requirement).

Since the referenced tension reducer is activated solely by door position, and the user has no manual control of the tension reducer operation, a question is raised pertaining to retraction force requirements.

We feel that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in FMVSS 209. That is; High Tension Mode -minimum retraction force requirements and Low Tension Mode - maximum retraction force requirement.

However, this raises another question on FMVSS 209 minimum requirements for retractor force for Type 2 Assemblies (0.2 lbs.). In FMVSS #208 proposed requirements for Comfort and Convenience, slack is allowed to be introduced in the webbing (S7.4.2.) provided that it is cancelled when the adjacent door is opened. This appears to be in contradiction of the 0.2 lbs. retraction force requirement of FMVSS 209 when utilizing a tension reducer type of retractor. Therefore, it seems, that since the tension reducer type of retractor is designed strictly for comfort, and not to induce slack, only 50% loss in retraction effort requirement after cycling should be pertinent.

The purpose of retractor cycling is to determine if the retractor will perform satisfactorily during repeated use and that spring tension does not change significantly as well as its ability to lock-up.

Since the high tension mode is used only for stowing the webbing and is not in operation during normal use, we feel that only cycling tests without lock-ups need be performed in accordance with FMVSS #209.

The low tension mode is the portion of the retractor that will perform during impact conditions and therefore should require standard cycling with lock-ups.

Therefore, we feel an interpretation of the adequacy of the minimum retraction force requirement pertaining to Comfort and Convenience type mechanisms is necessary. Also do both tension modes have to satisfy the Retractor Performance requirement of FMVSS #209.

We would appreciate your review of the above comments and your interpretation of same.

Very truly yours,

UNITED STATES TESTING COMPANY, INC.

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President FP/na

ID: 1984-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/84 EST

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Asahi Glass Co. Ltd. -- Seiroku Miyauchi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Seiroku Miyauchi Plastic Products Dev. & Marketing Div. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. 1-2, Marunouchi, 2-Chome Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100 Japan

This responds to your letter to Mr. Francis Armstrong asking several questions about Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. The answers to your questions are discussed below.

Your first question concerned the requirements of Weathering Test No. 16 of American National Standard Institute Z-26. The version of ANSI Z-26 currently incorporated by reference in Standard No. 205 is ANSI Z-26.1-1977, as supplemented by Z-26.1a, July 3, 1980, rather than ANSI Z-26.1-1977 as cited in your letter. Your question has to do with the language of section 5.16.3 of ANSI Z-26, which states that after the weathering test, "the decrease in regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of the irradiated specimen shall not exceed 5 percent." You ask whether the permissible decrease is an absolute 5 percentage points (defined as A-B, where A is the luminous transmittance before the test and B is the luminous transmittance after the test) or is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B)/A). The permissible decrease is a relative decrease of 5 percent (defined as (A-B)/A), or stated another way, the irradiated specimen must have 95 percent of its original transmittance after the test.

You also asked if Weathering Test No. 16 applies to AS-7 glazing materials. As required by Table 1 of ANSI Z-26, the weathering test does apply to AS-7 glazing materials.

Finally, you asked which DOT number, yours or the resin maker's, should be applied to a motorcycle windshield you make with an injection machine from polycarbonate resin pellets. Your DOT number must be used, since you fabricate the actual item of glazing material that will be placed in a vehicle.

Sincerely, Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Dec. 26, 1983

Mr. Francis Armstrong Director Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance Enforcement National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street Sw. Washington D.C. 20590 U. S. A.

Dear Mr. F. Armstrong :

This is a letter in response to your letter of December 8, 1983. We appreciate your kind cooperation very much. This time, we would like to inquire you the following questions.

(1) Concerning the weathering test (test No.16 of ANS Z26.1-1977) It describes that the decrease in luminous transmittance of the irradiated specimens shall not exceed 5%. Would you tell me the meaning cf the above mentioned decrease ? It can be defined as either way ... (A-B)/A or (A-B) A : the luminous transmittance before test B : the luminous transmittance after test We think (A-B) is correct. Because if (A-B)/A is correct, the allowable decrease (A-B) is relatively smaller in proportion to the smaller A value. And in addition, is the above criteria applied to AS-7 grade, which is defined at the level not requisite for driving visibility?

(2) Concerning the marking of safety glazing materials. We purchase the polycarbonate resin pellets from resin makers, and mold windscreens for motorcycles with injection machine. In this connection, which DOT number should we mark the resin maker's number or our number ?

Your prompt answer will be much appreciated.

Yours Sincerely,

( Seiroku Miyauchi ) Technical Manager Plastic Products Dev. & Marketing Div. Asahi Glass Co., Ltd.

SM / yy

ID: 1984-1.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/05/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Stapleton Public Schools

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Ben Barbie Stapleton Public Schools P.O. Box 125 Stapleton, Nebraska 69163

Dear Mr. Barbie:

This is in further reply to your phone call of February 13, 1984, to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding the remanufacture of school buses using older model bus bodies on new chassis. You asked whether the school bus safety standards apply to a school bus manufactured with a 1976 model year body mounted on a new chassis.

The applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards is determined by the date of manufacture of the motor vehicle. For vehicles that are completed in several stages, the manufacturer can treat as the date of manufacture the date of the incomplete vehicle, the date of final completion of the vehicle, or a date between those two dates. An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in 49 CFR Part 568, Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages, as:

an assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

The effective date of the school bus safety standards was April 1, 1977. Since the date of manufacture of the school bus chassis is after April 1, 1977, and the date of completion of the vehicle is after April 1, 1977, the completed school bus must meet the requirements of the school bus safety standards. It is extremely unlikely that the 1976 model year body will comply with the school bus standards since the body was manufactured before the effective date of the school bus standards. If your completed vehicle does not comply with the safety standards, your manufacturer, distributor, or dealer cannot certify it as conforming to such standards.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1984-1.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/09/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proto-Systems Inc. -- Barry M. Davis, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Barry M. Davis Vice President Proto-Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 871 Pembroke, Massachusetts 02359

This is in reply to your letter of December 29, 1983, with respect to the "Headlight Kit" which you manufacture as "an aftermarket add on headlamp concealment device for the Camaro." You have stated that it will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by Chevrolet dealers as a new car option. You have asked whether the product requires certification under Safety Standard No. 112 and, if so, how may it be included in your packaging and promotional material. If you are not required to certify, you would like to know if you may use the DOT symbol and the phrase "meets Federal safety standards" on your packaging.

We have two types of safety standards: those that vehicles must meet, and those that individual equipment items must meet. Safety Standard No. 112, Headlamp Concealment Devices, is an example of the former; when equipped with a headlamp concealment device, a vehicle must meet certain performance requirements. The vehicle must meet these requirements at the time of sale to the first purchaser for purposes other than resale, and be certified as meeting the requirements. Certification of compliance with the vehicle safety standards is provided by the vehicle manufacturer; however, if the vehicle is altered before its sale, in more than a minor way, the alterer must provide an additional certification identifying himself as a modifier and that the vehicle as modified continues to meet the standards. Assuming that Chevrolet dealers perform the modification, it is they, not you, who must apply the alterer's label. The alterer's certification requirements are contained in 49 CFR Section 567.7.

Once a vehicle has been sold, no alterer's certification is required, but the party performing the alterations is required to insure that he is not "rendering inoperative in whole or in part" the headlighting system. We would interpret this to mean that if the concealment system's performance were not the equivalent of that obtainable under Standard No. 112 a violation might exist. This prohibition is established by Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. However, the prohibition does not preclude the vehicle owner from himself making any modification he chooses (subject, of course, to local law).

This means that regardless of whether your system is sold to new car dealers or to retail stores in the aftermarket your company has no certification responsibility. Thus, the use of a DOT symbol would be improper and could even be viewed as technically false and misleading under Section 108(a)(1)(C) of the Act, for which a civil penalty might be imposed. The phrase "meets Federal safety standards" is also inaccurate. However, if your tests and other data clearly indicate that a Camaro would meet Standard No. 112 with the system in place, we would not object to your including a qualifying phrase such as "Vehicle can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 112 if system is installed in accordance with instructions." That would afford a basis upon which the new car dealer could rely in affixing his alterer's label, and would reassure an after-sale modifier that he was not violating the Act.

I hope that this has been helpful to you. For your information, I enclose copies of Standard No. 112, 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and the Act.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Dear Mr. Berndt:

I am a manufacturer of aftermarket automotive accessories. We are in the process of developing a product which may or may not involve coverage under a safety standard in CFR title 49. I have received conflicting opinions about wheater the product is covered and finallly was referred to you by Steve Oesch of your office.

The product we are going to produce called the "Headlight Kit" will be sold as an after maket add-on headlamp concealment device for the Carmo. It will be sold in retail outlets and be offered by car dealers as a new car option.

Briefly, the device operates by means of a motorized, opaque panel which covers the existing stationary headlamps. When the normal healight switch is operated the panels covering both sets of headlamps drops down leaving the beams unconstructed.

It was brought to my attention by Mr. Van Iderstien and Mr. Medlin, safety standard engineers in the office of vehicle safety standards, division of crash avoidance, that our product was covered under Code of Federal Regulations title 49 part 566 section 571.112 concerning headlamp concealment devices, and SAE standard J579c concerning beam pattern requirements for sealed beam headlamp.

Our Headling Kit has been designed to comply fully with all provisions of the standards.

This is of particular importance to us because our competitors' products do not comply. It is our intention to represent this product as being in full compliance with Federal safety standards. We are currently printing promotional and packaging material and recently need your response to the following:

1. Does this prouct require certification under 571.112?

2. If certification is required, what is the procedure for allowing us to include this certification on our packaging and promotional materials?

3. If certification is not required, may we still include on our package:

a. The symbol - "DOT" b. The phrase - "Meets federal safety standards"

Please call me with any question. Our production schedules have already been made. Your prompt attention would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Barry M. Davis Vice President, Proto-Systems, Inc. BMD/dmj