ID: nht81-1.13

DATE: 02/11/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Katsuhiko Yokoi Assistant Manager - Tech. Dept. Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd. 1, Nagahata, Ochiai, Haruhi-mura Nishikasugai-gun Aichi-pref., 452 JAPAN

Dear Mr. Yokoi:

The answers to the questions in your letter of January 20, 1982, are "yes" to both questions.

1. The "adjacent layers" referenced in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 106, paragraphs S7.3.7, are (a) the inner tube and braided layer and (b) the braided layer and outer tube.

2. The adhesion requirements are met if both the tensile strengths measured between (a) the inner tube and braided layer and (b) that between the braided layer and the outer cover are equal to or greater than 8 lbs/inch as determined using the FMVSS No. 106 procedure. It should be noted that the 8 lbs/inch value is an absolute minimum value as indicated in paragraph S8.6.4(a) standard.

A copy of FMVSS No. 106 is included for your information.

Sincerely,

Vernon G. Bloom Safety Standards Engineer

Enclosure FMVSS No. 106

ID: nht81-1.14

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 19, 1981 Mr. Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President United States Testing Company 1415 Park Avenue Hoboken, New Jersey 07030 Dear Mr. Pepe: This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, when applied to assemblies having dual sensitive emergency locking retractors. Your specific questions relate to the low lock-up provisions of paragraph S4.3(j) of the standard. Paragraph S4.3(j) of Safety Standard No. 209 specifies the following requirements for emergency locking retractors on seat belt assemblies: (1) Shall lock before the webbing extends 1 inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7g; (2) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends 2 inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3g or less; (3) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15o or less from its orientation in the vehicle.

At the time these requirements were included in the standard, emergency locking retractors were either vehicle sensitive or webbing sensitive. Recently, however, manufacturers have been producing dual sensitive retractors that are sensitive to both vehicle acceleration and webbing acceleration. You point out that dual sensitive retractors can be tested to the requirements of S4.3(j)(3) with no problem since the webbing sensitive aspect of the retractor does not interfere. However, you state that it is impossible to isolate the vehicle sensitive portion of a dual sensitive retractor in order to test to S4.3(j)(2). Accordingly, when the retractor is accelerated to .3g under the specification of (j)(2), the vehicle sensitive portion causes the retractor to lock before 2 inches of webbing have withdrawn, even though the webbing sensitive portion of the retractor would not have caused lock-up. You explain that this occurs because most retractors containing vehicle sensitive mechanisms are designed to lock-up at low "g" force levels (i.e., a tolerance is built into the retractor to ensure that it can meet the .7g requirement of subparagraph (1)). In light of this problem, you ask whether dual sensitive retractors must comply with S4.3(j)(2).

This same question was raised by Safety Transport Inter AB, Sweden, several years ago. In an October 30, 1978, letter of interpretation responding to that question, the NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking made the following statement:

"A retractor sensitive to webbing withdrawal (even if it is also sensitive to vehicle acceleration) may properly be tested for the 0.3 g comfort requirement by holding the retractor stationary and accelerating the webbing to the required g level."

That interpretation was incorrect. Paragraph S4.3(j)(2) specifically states that the retractor is to be accelerated, not the belt webbing. Further, the agency has stated in the past that accelerating the retractor and accelerating the webbing are not equivalent tests because of inertial forces that react upon the retractor during its acceleration that are not present when the webbing alone is accelerated.

The agency believes that a dual sensitive retractor should be treated simply as either a vehicle sensitive or a webbing sensitive retractor for the purposes of the standard. The intent of the agency was to require that either vehicle sensitive or webbing sensitive retractors be used. There was no expectation that dual sensitive retractors would be used and no intent that a retractor be required to meet the requirements for both types of retractors. The provision of webbing sensitivity in a retractor that meets the vehicle sensitivity requirements is a voluntary act and therefore is not subject to the standard. Likewise, the provision of vehicle sensitivity in a retractor that meets the webbing sensitive requirements is a voluntary act.

This approach will resolve the conflict that has arisen with the compliance envelopes established in S4.3(j)(1) and (j)(2), given the compliance tolerances which manufacturers are designing into newer retractors. Since vehicle sensitive mechanisms are being designed so that they activate before the .7g's required in (j)(1) is reached, the retractor locks before the webbing sensitive portion of the retractor is activated. Therefore, these dual sensitive retractors can not be tested for compliance with (j)(2).

Under this approach, a manufacturer wishing to treat its dual sensitive retractor as a vehicle sensitive retractor for the purposes of Standard No. 209 would have to comply with S4.3(j)(1) and (3). A manufacturer wishing to treat its dual sensitive retractor as a webbing sensitive retractor would have to comply with S4.3(j)(1) and (2).

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 15, 1980

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 - 7th Street Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: FMVSS No. 209 Seat Belt Assemblies Interpretation, Emergency Locking Retractor, Lock-Up Requirement

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Some questions have been raised pertaining to the requirements for Dual Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractors when tested in accordance with FMVSS No. 209. The questions pertain to the low lock-up requirements (0.3g) Paragraph S4.3 (j).

A dual-sensitive retractor is a combination of webbing sensitive and vehicle sensitive locking mechanisms. The specifications clearly states requirements for either one of the mechanisms but does not take into account the combination of both in the same retractor. Consequently, an interpretation is needed to clarify the requirements of this type of retractor.

Our interpretation of the Standard, Para. S4.3 (j) (1) (2) and (3) as it applies to a dual-sensitive retractor is as follows:

(1) Shall lock before the webbing extends one (1) inch when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g.

Comment: Applies to all types of emergency locking retractors

(2) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to webbing withdrawal, before the webbing extends two (2) inches when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.3 g or less.

Comment: Applies only to webbing sensitive type retractors. In dual sensitive retractors there is no way of isolating the vehicle sensitive portion (without disturbing an integral part of the retractor mechanism) to check the webbing sensitivity portion at 0.3 g. There is no requirement at 0.3 g for a strictly vehicle sensitive retractor. It should also be noted that most retractors containing vehicle sensitive mechanisms are designed to lock-up at low g force levels. This is to insure user confidence in the assembly during low level loading, such as braking.

(3) Shall not lock, if the retractor is sensitive to vehicle acceleration, when the retractor is rotated in any direction to any angle of 15o or less from its orientation in the vehicle.

Comment: Applies to both vehicle sensitive and dual-sensitive retractors.

I would appreciate your prompt review of the above interpretation and any comments you may have pertaining to same.

Very truly yours,

Frank Pepe Assistant Vice President Engineering Division

FP:mg

ID: nht81-1.15

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: J. L. Lubatti

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicle equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

SINCERELY,

December 12, 1980

N.H.T.S.A.

ATTENTION PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. x

John L. Lubatti Branch Manager

Police report omitted.

ID: nht81-1.16

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Titeflex, Industrial Products Groups

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether air compressor discharge hose lines would be considered "brake hose" subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses (49 CFR 571.106), defines "brake hose" as:

A flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes.

This definition excludes the line from the air compressor to the supply tank, if that hose does not supply force to the vehicle's brakes in your system. Therefore, your hose would not be required to comply with Safety Standard No. 106.

In response to your question 1(b), any hose that supplies force, either directly or indirectly, to the vehicle's brakes is considered "brake hose", whether or not the hose is "right at the wheel brakes themselves" (as stated in your letter). For example, hose in brake booster systems is generally considered "brake hose."

In answer to your last two questions, there are no other Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which would be applicable to air compressor discharge hoses. You will have to contact the individual States to see if there are applicable regulations at that level. We are not aware of any such State regulations, however.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

Titeflex INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS GROUP

October 24, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain clarifying information concerning your Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #106-74 ("Brake Hoses"), revised 7/7/76, and as amended by Notice #24 effective 5/25/78, copies of which I have.

Our company is a manufacturer of flexible Teflon hose and swaged fittings. We have been asked by numerous motor vehicle end-users (buses, motorcycles, race cars, etc.) throughout the U.S. as to whether or not our hose, fittings, and hose assemblies meet DOT specifications. Accordingly, we would appreciate your response to the questions below:

1. Among other things, paragraph S-4 of #106-74 defines "brake hose" (and "a brake hose assembly") as being" a flexible conduit manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a motor vehicle's brakes" (this pertains to hydraulic, air, and vacuum brakes).

(a) In public transit buses (e.g., those governed by UMTA's Transit Coach Specifications), must air compressor discharge flexible hose lines (air compressor-to-ping tank) be governed by Standard #106-74? Or are these compressor discharge lines considered only accessory lines and thus do not have to meet these specifications? Are these lines "in the brake system" or not?

(b) It is my understanding that only the actual brake hoses right at the wheel brakes themselves are the hoses which must comply with this standard. Is this correct?

2. This Safety Standard pertains only to "brake hoses". Are there any other Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, on a National basis, with which our hoses/assemblies must comply for any other motor vehicle application?

3. Finally, are there any individual state or local standards which apply for these or other flexible hose applications on any motor vehicle, assuming we comply with your national standards?

Your assistance in helping to clarify this matter will be most appreciated. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Robert J. McGurk -- Manager, Market Development

ID: nht81-1.17

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether certain flexible air pressure hoses for use on trucks would be subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106, Brake Hoses. The hose in question would be used to transfer pressure from the air reservoir of the brake power assist unit (of the hydraulic service brake system) to a cylinder that actuates the exhaust brake control.

Safety Standard No. 106 defines "brake hose" as: "A flexible conduit, other than a vacuum tubing connector, manufactured for use in a brake system to transmit or contain the fluid pressure or vacuum used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes."

The hose that your company desires to use is not a part of the service brake system or the power assist system, either directly or indirectly. If pressure should be lost in the exhaust brake circuit of which the subject hose is a component, the loss would be isolated from the performance of the service and power assist circuits by means of a check valve. Therefore, the hose does not transmit the pressure or vacumm used to apply force to the vehicle's brakes, and it would not be considered a "brake hose" subject to the requirements of Safety Standard No. 106.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

MERCEDES - BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA. INC.

December 17, 1980

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Request For Interpretation; FMVSS 106, Brake Hoses

Dear Madam or Sir:

Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. hereby requests an interpretation as to whether or not certain flexible air pressure hoses proposed for use on our truck models would be subject to the requirements of FMVSS 106, brake hoses. The hose in question would serve to transfer pressure from the air reservoir of the brake power assist unit (of our hydraulic service brake system) to a cylinder that actuates the exhaust brake control. The brake power assist unit reservoir is protected against pressure loss in this exhaust brake circuit by means of a check valve located directly on the reservoir. All pertinent components are identified on the attached drawing No. BL046/80.

Inasmuch as the hose used in this exhaust brake circuit is neither within the hydraulic service brake circuits, nor within the brake power assist unit circuit (air), and should pressure be lost in this exhaust brake circuit it would be isolated from the performance of the service and assist circuits by means of a check valve, Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. believes that this hose is not subject to the requirements of FMVSS 106.

Should you have any questions regarding this request, do not hesitate in contacting this office,

Best regards,

HEINZ W. GERTH -- VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING AND SERVICE

ID: nht81-1.18

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Proprietors Insurance Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of December 12, 1980, to the Office of Public Affairs and Consumer Participation. In your letter, you relate an incident involving a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. You state that this vehicle drifted down a steep grade and overturned after the driver parked and left the vehicle. The car's automatic transmission was apparently left in "Drive." You ask whether the design of this vehicle, which permits the driver to remove the keys from the ignition when the transmission is not in "Park," is legal. You also ask whether there is any litigation pending concerning this matter.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is empowered to issue safety standards regarding motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Each regulation specifies minimum requirements that all vehicles and equipment to which the regulation applies must meet. The design of the Plymouth Horizon does not violate Federal safety standards. Safety Standard No. 102, Transmission shift lever sequence, starter interlock, and transmission braking effect, regulates starter interlocks on vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions. This rule requires that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position. It does not require that the transmission be in "Park" before the keys can be removed from the ignition. Safety Standard No. 114, Theft Protection, requires all passenger cars to have a key-locking system. Standard No. 114 mandates that the key-locking system prevent (among other things) steering, forward movement of the vehicle under its own power, or both when the key is removed from the lock.

The key-locking system in the Horizon does not prevent forward self-mobility, as evidenced by the accident you describe in your letter. However, it does lock the steering column when the keys are removed from the ignition, and so it complies with the rule. The requirements of Standard No. 114 were designed to reduce the incidence of joyrider theft.

NHTSA is not currently investigating the Plymouth Horizon in regard to the issue you raise in your letter. The agency is unaware of any pending litigation.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact this office if you have any more questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

December 12, 1980

PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND CONSUMER PARTICIPATION -- N.H.T.S.A.

Re: 1979 Plymouth Horizon

Gentlemen:

In accordance with our insurance contract with the Sisters of Divine Providence and the Diocese of Pittsburgh, we recently paid a collision claim in excess of $ 2,900.00 and secured the proper form subrogating our company to their rights.

The vehicle's automatic transmission was apparently left in the "Drive" position by our insured after being parked on a relatively steep grade. She was able to remove the ignition key from the steering column and exit the vehicle before it drifted down the hill and overturned. (A copy of the police report is enclosed to verify the details). I'm advised that all 1979 and 1980 models of Horizon and Omni allow the operator to remove the keys regardless of whether the automatic floor type shifter is in the "Park" position.

Is this design legal and/or acceptable to your agency? If not, please also advise of any pending litigation concerning the matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

John L. Lubatti -- Branch Manager, PROPRIETORS INSURANCE CO.

Enclosures omitted.

ID: nht81-1.19

DATE: 02/19/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 19 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Jiro Kawano General Manager U.S. Representative Office Toyota Motor Co., Ltd. One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, NJ 07094

Dear Mr. Kawano:

This responds to your recent letter regarding a new emergency locking retractor design that incorporates, within the retractor housing, a separate webbing lock mechanism. You ask for confirmation that the one-inch locking requirement of S4.a(j)(1) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, applies only to the retractor itself and not to a separate webbing lock that is incorporated in the retractor housing.

Your interpretation is correct. Provided the retractor as a whole complies with the one-inch locking requirement of S4.3(j)(1), the webbing lock is permissible and would not have to comply with the requirement as a separate component. The agency would view the webbing locking device as a voluntary component not required by the standard.

We have recently issued an interpretation to the American Testing Company which deals with a similar subject. That interpretation discusses the requirements of S4.3(j) as applicable to dual sensitive retractors (i.e., retractors that have both vehicle sensitive and webbing sensitive mechanisms). I am enclosing a copy of that interpretation for your information. It explains more fully the requirements of section S4.3(j). If you have any further questions after reviewing this information, please feel free to contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

December 1, 1980

Frank Berndt, Esquire Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This is to seek confirmation of our interpretation of FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.3(j)(1) as it applies to a new emergency locking retractor (ELR) design which incorporates, within the same housing, a separate webbing lock.

As we explained in our September 30, 1980 informal meeting with Mr. Ralph Hitchcock and others of the NHTSA staff, this additional webbing lock improves overall seat belt performance and, for space and weight saving considerations, is built into the same housing as the ELR itself.

Therefore, we ask NHTSA to confirm that the one (1) inch locking requirement of paragraph S4.3(j)(1) of FMVSS 209 applies only to the ELR itself, and not to a separate webbing lock that may physically be incorporated into the same housing as the ELR.

We trust you will treat the above as confidential and should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact our counsel, Donald M. Schwentker, at (262) 347-6007.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CO., LTD.

Jiro Kawano General Manager U. S. Representative Office

JK:dd

cc: Donald M. Schwentker

ID: nht81-1.2

DATE: 01/02/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndtn; NHTSA

TO: Bennett Goldworth

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 8, 1980, reporting your conversation with Mr. Vinson of this office and asking for a clarification of your status as a seller of a foreign car that does not meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. You purchased the car, a 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit, from Meir Halifa, an Israeli diplomat who imported it from Canada.

A diplomat is allowed to import a non-conforming vehicle into the United States pursuant to a written declaration that it will not be sold for use on American roads. Sale by Mr. Halifa for such use is an apparent violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. But your purchase and sale of the vehicle, and any subsequent purchase and sale is not prohibited by the Act. Nor is there any legal obligation under the Act for a person other than the original seller, Mr. Halifa, to conform the vehicle to American specifications.

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

Mallamud - Finkelstein Associates, Inc.

December 8, 1980

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Mr. Vicent advised me to write to you concerning my problem.

I recently purchased a 1980 Volkswagon Rabbit from Meir Halifa, an Israeli diplomat. He had purchased the car in Canada, and the car had never been converted to meet United States specifications.

I am in the process of selling the car to a dealer, However, before he will accept the car in a trade- he would like a letter stating that I, as well as any subsequent owners will in no way be liable for Mr. Halifa's mistake and therefore not responsible for converting the car to U.S. specifications. From what I understand, Mr. Halifa is in Israel, but I understand it it out of my control as to whether you do prosecute or not. I would appreciate if you send the letter to me at 16 West 16th Street, N.Y. 10011. If you have any questions speak with Mr. Vincent, or contact me at (212) 765-2130.

Thank you for giving this your prompt consideration.

Bennett Goldworth

ID: nht81-1.20

DATE: 02/27/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagon of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FEB 27 1981

NOA-30

Mr. Dietmar K. Haenchen Vehicle Regulations Volkswagen of America, Inc. 27621 Parkview Boulevard Warren, Michigan 48092

Dear Mr. Haenchen:

This responds to your January 12, 1981, letter requesting an interpretation concerning the recent amendment of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, which added specifications for seat belt comfort and convenience. Specifically, you asked whether the requirement for seat belt guides contained in paragraph S7.4.6.1 of the amended standard exempts both seats which "fold and then tumble" and seats which "tumble and then fold."

The answer to your question is yes. All rear seats that "tumble" are exempted from the seat belt guide requirements of the standard. The agency did not use the phrase "fold and tumble" in order to clarify that tumbling is the characteristic that gives rise to the exemption. Some future designs may include seats that merely tumble over into the floor, and that do not fold to create the flat cargo surface that is desired in these vehicles. Such a design would be exempted from the seat belt guide requirement. However, seats that only fold (i.e., that do not also tumble) would not be exempted from the requirements.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

12 January 1981

Mr. Frank Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

This letter is to request an official interpretation regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. Specifically, our question is in reference to the recently published rule on seat belt comfort and convenience.

Paragraph 7.4.6.1 specifies certain requirements for seat belts and seat belt guides except that the requirements do not apply to "rear seats that tumble". The "tumble" function is not expressly defined, however, a reading of the preamble implies that it relates to the type of rear seat used in various Volkswagen products. Our question is then, does this exemption apply to both of the Volkswagen rear seat configurations which are mentioned in the preamble, i.e., both to seats which fold and then tumble, and also to seats which tumble and then fold, as illustrated in the enclosures.

It is our belief that this exemption does apply to both types of seats. Mr. Robert Nelson, the contact person for this rulemaking, concurred with this opinion in a conversation with Mr. Smreker of my staff on 9 January, 1981. However, he suggested that we request written confirmation of this from your office.

So that we may make an informed decision regarding a petition for reconsideration on this matter, we would appreciate receiving a response to the expiration of the 30 day reconsideration period.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

Dietmar K. Haenchen Executive Engineer Vehicle Regulations

JPS/ubf

Encl.

ID: nht81-1.21

DATE: 03/03/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Vehtek Marketing Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

March 3, 1981 NOA-30

Mr. Michael J. Klein Vice President Vehtek Marketing Inc. 2795 Townline Road Alden, New York 14004

Dear Mr. Klein:

This responds to your February 12, 1981, letter requesting information concerning any Federal requirements that would be applicable to a water injection system used to increase the efficiency of vehicle fuel systems. Your company's water injection system is sold as aftermarket equipment which is attached to a vehicle's carburetor to increase gas mileage.

For your information, I am enclosing a synopsis of agency interpretations which sets forth the general Federal implications of installing auxiliary fuel tanks in vehicles or of converting vehicle fuel systems. This information explains in detail the responsibilities of a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1979 (15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq.), in relation to a vehicle's fuel system. Although your product is not an auxiliary gas tank and does not require a conversion of the fuel system, the stated principles are applicable to your product since it is motor vehicle equipment. Following is a summary of the most pertinent aspects of that material as it relates directly to your water injection system.

Safety Standard No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, is applicable only to completed new vehicles and would, therefore, not be directly applicable to your motor vehicle equipment. It may be indirectly applicable, however. The standard specifies performance requirements for fuel systems by limiting the amount of fuel leakage which may occur after a barrier impact crash test of the vehicle. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act specifies 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 in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Any of these persons would be prohibited from installing your product on a vehicle fuel system if that installation would cause the vehicle to no longer be in compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. Since your letter indicates that the water injection system is not directly attached to a vehicle's fuel system, it is not likely that installation of the product would render inoperative the vehicle's compliance with Safety Standard No. 301. However, your company will have to determine whether in fact the installation would affect compliance. I have enclosed a copy of Safety Standard No. 301 for your information.

Under 49 CFR Part 579, your water injection system would be considered "motor vehicle replacement equipment." Part 579 places the responsibility for safety defects in performance, construction components, or materials of motor vehicle replacement equipment on the manufacturer of such equipment. Under section 108(a)(1)(D) and 109(a) of the Vehicle Safety Act, any manufacturer who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a safety defect in its motor vehicle equipment is liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation. Therefore, it is your responsibility to determine that your water injection system contains no safety-related defects. For example, if your system would cause a vehicle's engine to stall, this could be considered a safety defect by the agency.

In closing, I would state that you do not need any prior approval from the agency before marketing your product. All the responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act are placed directly on the manufacturer. I hope you will find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

February 12, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Consul National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th. Street - South-West Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt,

As per my telephone conversation Wednesday, February 11th, 1981, with Steven Wood, I am writing concerning a water injection system we manufacture for automotive use. We recently had some experience with State of New York owned vehicles where we were told that we need D.O.T. approval in order to be legal.

After two days of long distance telephone calls I reached your office. I was told that our situation may involve standard 301, and to mention that to you. Also let me state that we do not tap into the gasoline system or its passage.

Our system is relatively simple in operation. It was patented in 1973 (patent number 3778039) by its inventor, Al Dore, who worked with venter injection since the 1930's. We insert into the boost venturi of the carburetor a brass tube through which the water is drawn in - in much the same way as the gasoline is drawn in - the greater the engine speed, the greater the amount of water. We have a water reservoir mounted in the vehicles engine compartment which when low on water activates a water pump which draws water from a five gallon (D.O.T. 2E rated) container which is mounted, at the customers discretion, in a remote location. I have enclosed a brochure which depicts the system as I have described it. I would like to add that by design no water is drawn into the engine at speeds of below approximately 1500 RPM, as a safety precaution. The system is much more sophisticated than I describe, but for purposes of explanation that is how it works. It uses water at about the rate of one gallon of water to twenty gallons of gasoline.

We have several testimonial letters attesting to considerable mileage increase; above 10%. Most of these average 30%. We give a written money back guarantee of a minimum of a 10% increase in gas mileage! No other water injection manufacturer gives a similar warranty, and there are approximately forty-two other units on the market today. We know our unit works and we're proud to be manufacturing an American made energy saving device. I would appreciate your written comments at your earliest convenience so we may pursue government owned vehicles with the confidence of being legal. I would like to extend my appreciation for your time and efforts.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Klein, Vice President

MJK/JR