ID: nht79-3.3

DATE: 08/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Honorable David Boren - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 28 1979

Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.

Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express my admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.

The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams, Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from a 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit at least 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.

Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat would change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary "to begin the entire testing process for certification again." This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.

Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved, lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would lose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for your constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.

It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from a concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.

In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.

Sincerely,

Joan Claybrook

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

cc: Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative Volkswagen of America, Inc. 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

August 2, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Enclosed are copies of a letter from a constituent concerning a problem he is experiencing with his new car seat belts and the corresponding answer from the government relations department of the car manufacturer.

As evidenced from the letter from the car manufacturer, the Federal Government requires that the car be equipped with seat belts that will fit more than 90% of the population. What is to be done for those other 10% who must try to cope with the regulations on seat belts, but do not want to do anything violative of the law and are unable to get any relief from the car manufacturer?

I would appreciate it if you could give me some information that would be helpful to Mr. Weaver. If you know of any special waiver to the regulations that can be granted on an individual basis such as this, it would be very helpful in assuring that Mr. Weaver is given full satisfaction while still obeying the regulations under which he must operate his car.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to give in this matter. Your full attention to this problem is respectfully requested.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator

Enclosures

July 3, 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for the inquiry from Mr. Thomas J. Weaver regarding the seat belt system in his Volkswagen 4-door Rabbit-L Diesel vehicle.

I have personally checked with our safety engineers regarding the possibility of modifying Mr. Weaver's seat belt system. The system in Mr. Weaver's Rabbit is 100 percent in compliance with Federal standards for occupant crash protection. In fact, it is the Federal government that requires our seat belts to fit more than 90 percent of the American population.

To comply with these Federal standards, Volkswagen employs an integrated passive belt system in the model that Mr. Weaver owns. The occupant is protected by a combination of design features in the car which include the belt itself, a kneebar, the wheel and a special type of seat. If we were to lower the seat, the performance characteristics of our belt system would change, and it would be necessary to begin the entire testing process for certification again.

Therefore, because of the requirements of Federal laws in this area, we are unable to recommend an adjustment in the height of the seat.

If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative

KRA:hk

025 N. Sherry Avenue Norman, Oklahoma 73069 21 April 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator:

I recently purchased a Volkswagon 4-door Rabbit-L diesel automobile. The seat belts in the front seats are attached to the front doors so the seat belts "put themselves on" as the driver and front seat passenger enter the car. When I am driving the seat belt should come over my left shoulder. Instead it comes across my left arm. In an emergency situation where the seat belt mechanism became locked, this would severly restrict the use of my left arm in turning the steering wheel and could cause an accident.

Due to the large backlog of orders, I was not able to test drive this model car before purchase. Soon after delivery I notified the local dealer, Thunderbird Imports, of this problem and requested the front seats be lowered which would eliminate the problem. I was told the local dealer could not modify any of the safety system without the authorization of at least the regional office.

On 3 April 1979 I sent letters to the San Antonio Regional Office and the national headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, stating the problem and requesting that the front seats be lowered. On 19 April a representative from the San Antonio Regional Office, Jack Atwood, observed the situation but stated the car was made to specifications and no modifications could be made. The seat belts fit him properly--but he doesn't drive my car! Mr. Atwood passed the buck stating that only the U.S. Government could authorize changes to an approved automobile design. Today I recieved a letter from the San Antonio Regional Office confirming they would do nothing to correct this safety hazard.

Is there anything you can do have them lower the front seats of my car? I realize this is a lot of difficulty to make my car safer to drive. In their current position, I feel the seat belts are more likely to contribute to accidents and injury than to prevent them.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Weaver

Copy to: Thunderbird Imports

ID: nht79-3.30

DATE: 01/26/79

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

TO: Blue Bird Body Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

FMVSS INTERPRETATION Jan. 26, 1979 NOA-30

Mr. W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services Blue Bird Body Company P. O. Box 937 Fort Valley, Georgia 31030

Dear Mr. Milby:

This responds to your recent letter asking for confirmation that hoses running to air pressure gauges would not be considered "brake hoses" that are subject to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74. Mr. Fred Redler of the agency's Office of Vehicle Safety Standards apparently discussed this matter in a telephone conversation with one of your engineers.

Safety Standard No. 106-74 specifies performance requirements for brake hoses used in motor vehicles. That standard defines a 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."

If the hose in question is only connected to an air pressure gauge and does not transmit any fluid or pressure used to apply force to a braking system, it would not be considered a brake hose and would not be required to comply with Standard No. 106-74. This letter, therefore, confirms Mr. Redler's statements.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

November 30, 1978 Mr. Joseph J. Levin Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Levin:

This is to follow up a conversation between our Staff Engineer, Mr. Robert DuMond, and Mr. Fred Redler at NHTSA.

I am seeking confirmation of an interpretation given to Mr. DuMond by Mr. Redler relative to FMVSS 106-74, Brake Hoses and Fittings.

The question asked was whether FMVSS 106 applied to hoses running to air pressure gauges. Mr. Redler said that it did not because FMVSS 106 applies to brake hoses "...used to apply force to a vehicle's brakes." (Ref. S4). Would you please confirm this at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,

W. G. Milby Manager, Engineering Services

ID: nht79-3.31

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Hon. T. F. Eagleton - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 23, 1979, letter asking whether brakes installed in vehicles in compliance with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, can be modified or disconnected.

Your question asks whether these brake systems can be rendered inoperative. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) states that --

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or an item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . . .

Whether a portion of the air brake system can be rendered inoperative depends, therefore, upon whether that part of the brake system was installed in or on the vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded that portions of the braking systems installed in compliance with the sections of Standard No. 121 that were invalidated by the court were not installed in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Accordingly, these devices can be disconnected by a commercial facility. In general, this means that the antilock devices installed on trucks and trailers may be disconnected or removed. However, other components of the braking system that were installed in compliance with the remaining applicable sections of the standard may not be rendered inoperative by a commercial facility. Therefore, entire braking systems cannot be removed from trucks and trailers. The NHTSA recommends that any modification of the braking systems be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

In a related question, you ask who will bear the cost of disconnecting the braking systems, the manufacturer or the purchaser. We believe that the cost of modifying the braking system, depending on the circumstances, is a matter that may be negotiated between the parties.

SINCERELY,

United States Senate COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

August 23, 1979.

Joan Claybrook Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Admin. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook: A constituent of mine has written inquiring as to the guidelines for dealing with operative 121 brake systems in view of the recission of the regulation. He is concerned that continued operation of the brakes could be hazardous, but understandably he is reluctant to disconnect the brakes without some assurance he would not be libel.

A related question has to do with the cost of disconnecting and modifying 121 brakes. Does the manufacturer bear this responsibility or is it left to the purchaser of the vehicle?

I'd appreciate having your comments on these questions at the earliest time.

Thomas F. Eagleton United States Senator

ID: nht79-3.32

DATE: 08/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Berg Manufacturing Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 28, 1979, letter asking several questions about the compliance of your trailers with Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems.

You first ask whether section S5.6.3 allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is available at all times and is unaffected by any single failures in the service brake system. The answer to this question is yes. On August 9, 1979, the agency published in the Federal Register a notice amending section S5.6.3 of the standard to permit the type of parking brake system that you outlined in your letter.

In your second question, you ask whether your braking system complies with section S5.2.1.1. That section requires that a reservoir be provided that is capable of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes and that is unaffected by the loss of pressure in the service brake system. Your trailer has a tank and valve for each axle. You state that in the event of a service system failure including a failure of one of the tanks, that a reservoir is available such that when the supply line is pressurized to 55 psi, the vehicle's parking brakes will release. Assuming that your system operates as you have detailed in your letter, the agency concludes that it complies with S5.2.1.1 of the standard.

SINCERELY,

The Berg Manufacturing Company

June 28, 1979

Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: 49CFR 571.121

Dear Sir:

The purpose of this letter is to request an interpretation as to the compliance of an air brake system for trailers with FMVSS 121.

Figure 1 depicts a typical tandem axle trailer brake system. It has a tank and valve for each axle. In the event of a service system failure, including the failure of one of the air tanks, the parking brakes can be released by pressurizing the supply line to 55 psi. In operation, the system works as follows:

Charging the system. Tractor air pressure, from the supply (emergency) line enters the trailer valve. Below 55 psi, the supply line air goes directly to the emergency section of the spring brake chambers. Above 55 psi supply pressure, the air flows through the valve directly to the air tank.

Normal driving conditions. Air pressure in the trailer air tanks and valves maintains a normal pressure of 100 psi to 120 psi and is ready when it is necessary to apply the brakes of the trailer by the tractor brake valve through the control (service) line. The spring brakes are kept released, through a double check valve built into the valve, by either the tank pressure or the supply line pressure, whichever is greater.

Service braking. In normal brake applications, control air from the tractor actuates the relay piston in the trailer valve, which applies air pressure from the air tank to the service section of the spring brake chambers applying the brakes in a service mode.

Parking and/or emergency braking. When air presssure in the supply line drops below 45 psi, the emergency piston in the trailer valve closes the control line and applies pressure to the top of the relay piston which delivers tank air pressure to the service section of the spring brake chambers applying the brakes in an emergency mode. If the supply line pressure drops slowly, the emergency brakes apply slowly. If the pressure drops rapidly, the emergency brakes apply rapidly. It is possible to release the emergency brake application by re-establishing pressure in the supply line, which will exhaust the pressure applied to the brake chambers.

No system air pressure. With no air pressure in the system, the brake is applied by the spring in the spring brake chamber in a stable parking mode. No matter how the air pressure in the system decays, slowly or rapidly, the parking brake application never ceases as the spring force takes over as the air pressure decreases.

We have determined, by a careful review of the standard, that we clearly comply with the specific requirements of the standard except S5.6.3 and S5.2.1.1 with which we believe we comply with the intent. We have an interpretation from your office, dated March 14, 1977, that allows the use of service air to apply the parking brakes as long as a source of energy to apply the parking brakes is usable at all times and is unaffected by any single failure in the service brake system which clarifies that the system does comply with S5.6.3.

Careful reading of the various interpretations of which we are aware, leads us to believe that we do comply with S5.2.1.1. In the case of any single service system failure, including one of the air tanks, a protected reservoir is available and pressurization of the supply line to 55 psi will release the parking brakes.

We encourage any queries or comments and would be pleased to supply any further information you may require.

We look forward to receiving your reply to this letter.

Robert J. Crail Director of Engineering

cc: SERGIO CAMPANINI; DAVID SPILLER (Illegible Word) PRESSURE PROTECTED RELAY EMERGENCY VALVE.

FIGURE I

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-3.33

DATE: 08/07/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: The Institute For Safety Analysis

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 9, 1979, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impacts.

Your research concerning the history of the standard is correct. The first notice of proposed rulemaking on Standard No. 201 (31 F.R. 15212, December 3, 1966) proposed a definition and requirements for the "unrestrained child impact area." When the standard was originally issued in final form (32 FR 2408, February 3, 1967), the unrestrained child impact area definition and requirements were deleted. In the same issue of the Federal Register, the agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking stating that it intended to develop requirements to reduce impact hazards for unrestrained children (32 FR 2417). Although the agency did not subsequently publish any additional notices on Standard No. 201 specifically developed for the unrestrained child, the agency continued work on Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and developed Standard No. 213, Child Seating Systems, both of which provide improved protection for children riding in motor vehicles.

The agency is currently studying the potential benefits of built-in interior padding, child restraint devices and other means of making the vehicle rear seat a safe environment for child transportation. This work may provide the basis for future rulemaking.

You are also correct that there were administrative law hearings held on Standard No. 201. The record of those hearings, which were held May 22 and 23, 1967, in Detroit, Michigan, and May 24 and 25, 1967, in Washington, D.C., can be found in Docket 1, microfilm roll number 2. Please contact Ms. Hardee (426-2768) of the agency's docket section to make arrangements to view this material.

I hope this information will be of assistance. If you have any additional questions, please let me know.

SINCERLY,

July 9, 1979

Frank Berndt Deputy Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The Institute for Safety Analysis (TISA) is a private organization providing assistance in auto safety matters to clients across the country. Our president, Dr. Robert Brenner, was the first Chief Scientist of NHTSA. We are currently working with a Florida law firm which has a case involving General Motors. In that connection, our staff has been reviewing some of the regulatory dockets at the Technical Reference Branch. We have encountered what appear to be some gaps, and we are writing to you for guidance.

During the course of our research of dockets concerning FMVSS 201, "Occupant Protection in Interior Impact -- Passenger Cars," questions have arisen regarding the phrase "unrestrained child impact area." This phrase was included in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, (Illegible Word) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards," Docket 3, Notice 1 issued November 30, 1966. On January 31, 1967, in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making Docket 7, Notice 67-1, the phrase was deleted. The Agency noted its intent to develop requirements to reduce impact hazard for the unrestrained child. However, we have been unable to locate in any subsequent dockets any specific reference to the problem of the unrestrained child. We are hoping that you may be able to assist us in determining why later dockets did not identify requirements directed to the unrestrained child.

We also believe there were administrative law hearings on Standard 201. We have not found any materials from these hearings in our docket searches. Perhaps your office could direct us to a record of these proceedings, if they did, in fact, take place.

Thank you for your time and concern. Any assistance you can provide will be greatly appreciated.

Maureen Lindsey Director of Legal Research

ID: nht79-3.34

DATE: 06/18/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cars & Concepts, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 21, 1979, letter concerning the marking requirements for vehicle windshields having shade bands. You asked whether the "A S1" marking symbol required by Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials, can be placed on the tint band itself rather than on the glazing material below the band, if the tint band is a flexible sheet applied on top of the glazing.

Safety Standard No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials", ANS Z26. The ANS Z26 standard requires special additional markings for glazing that has shade bands or tinted areas:

"Glazing materials, which in a single sheet of material, are intentionally made with an area having a luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent (Test No. 2), adjoining an area which has less than 70-percent luminous transmittance, shall be permanently marked at the edge of the sheet to show the limits of the area which is intended to comply with Test No. 2. The markings shall be A S1 or A S2, etc., the direction of the arrow indicating the portion of the material which complies with Test No. 2 and the number indicating the item with which that portion of the sheet complies . . . ."

You will note from the quoted portion of this specification that the special marking is only required if the tinted shade band area of the windshield has a luminous transmittance of less than 70 percent. Your letter states that the transparent windshield tint band that you intend to use allows 70 percent light transmission. Therefore, you would not be required to use the "A S1" special marking either on the band itself or on the glazing.

For removable tint bands of this type that do not have a 70 percent light transmission, however, the agency would permit the "A S1" marking to be on the tint band itself rather than on the underlying glazing, provided the marking is located at the lowest possible portion of the tint band.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

May 21, 1979

Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Council, N.H.T.S.A.

Dear Mr. Levin:

Cars & Concepts is preparing a vehicle for 1980 production which incorporates a transparent windshield tint band. This band would allow 70% light transmission across its width and be located in accordance with SAE J-100.

This band would be applied to a piece of untinted glass and this condition forms the basis for my question. If we install a shade band across the top of a vehicle's windshield, are we required to sandblast the designation "AVSI" onto the glass below the band (I understand it is cited through reference in FMVSS No. 205)?

If this "AVSI" notice is required on untinted glass when a shade band is applied, I propose that it should be on the band itself as it is only when the band is on the car (it would be possible to remove the band) that this notice is required.

The N.H.T.S.A.'s decision on this point is critical to our project timing as brochure shots are scheduled and the addition or deletion of this component must be made prior to brochure release. Because of this your response as soon as possible will be greatly appreciated.

Enclosed is a photograph of a vehicle with a prototype version of the mentioned tint band which I feel may clarify our question. Please call if any point is unclear.

Sincerely, Moe Pare -- Director of Design

Encl.

cc: D. Draper; R. Ryan

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-3.35

DATE: 07/17/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Paul Schuil

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking whether smoked, tinted and mirrored windows may legally be used on vehicles operating on U.S. highways.

The Federal requirements for glazing materials on motor vehicles are set forth in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 571.205). This standard specifies performance requirements for the various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each glazing type may be used. Smoked, tinted and mirrored glazing may be used in certain vehicles in certain locations. For example, smoked glass may be used in side windows of trucks and buses. However, glazing material for use in any vehicle at levels requisite for driving visibility (e.g., windshields) must have a luminous transmittance of at least 70 percent. Most smoked glass would not pass this requirement. I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 205 for your information. If you have any questions after reviewing the standard, contact Hugh Oates of my office (202-426-2992).

SINCERELY,

HADCO ALUMINUM & METAL CORPORATION

DEAR SIRS,

I would like to know if smoked or tinted, & mirrored windows are legal on U.S. highways. I am talking about all four sides of a vehicle.

Please send a response to:

HADCO ALUMINUM AND METAL CORPORATION

PAUL SCHUIL

ID: nht79-3.36

DATE: 03/06/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Lifetime Foam Products, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of February 8, 1979, requesting confirmation of your understanding of an October 7, 1976, letter of interpretation by our office concerning Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems. You are correct in your assumption that the standard applies only to completed vehicles and not to vehicle seats as individual equipment.

SINCERELY,

LIFETIME Foam Products, Inc.

February 8, 1979

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Gentlemen:

Attached is a copy of our inquiry to your office dated September 10, 1976, and the response from your office dated October 7, 1976.

Although we make every effort to build our merchandise to meet the provisions of Standard No. 207, we have understood your response to mean that our seating pieces did not have to meet the provisions of that standard if the pieces are sold to customers who purchase them out of retailer's catalogs to install in their own vehicles.

I would appreciate your confirming our understanding of your response.

Frank Tedesco PRESIDENT

September 10, 1976

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Gentlement:

Cortification of Optional Accossory Seats for Recreational Vehicles and Multipurpose Vehicles per FMVSS207

Lifetime Foam Products is proceeding toward the furbrication of custom, recreational vehicle seating accossories which would be marketed to the public through the catalog division of our parent organisation, Sears, Roobuck and Co. The following list of consumer-installed seating accessories is representative of this new product line.

1. Convertible bad/bench/dinette set.

2. Convertible couch/bed.

3. Tower-back seat.

4. Recliner chair.

Because we are entering a new aspect of our operations, we are most eager that the structural designs meet our high standards of quality as well as applicable operational standards. During the preliminary stages of our activitions, I talked with Mr. Robert Gardner of NHTSA on July 29, and he recommended that I contact your office. Therefore, the purpose of this inquiry is to obtain approval from DOT for certification of these seats according to the applicable sections of FMVSS207 using only "bench tests" (out-of-vehicle) which will certify everthing except the seat-to floor attachment. The reason for excluding the seat-to-floor attachment is that these optional accessory seats will eventually be installated by the consumer in many types of recreational vehicles, in numerous configurations and on floors whose structural integrity cannot be predicted (Illegible Word). These certification tests would be conducted in accordance with NHTSA approval "Laboratory Procedured for Seating Systems: Passenger Cars, Trucks, Buses and Multipurpose Vehicles, TP207-06" or subsequent update of the procedure when they (Illegible Word) available.

As a result of this unknown condition of the floor structure in the user's vehicle, we plan to include in the installation instructions a cautionary statement to the following effect:

"Install per instructions using large area washers furnished in the installation kit. Those washers are to be installed on the underneath side of the floor pan between the attachment not and the vehicle floor. The washers will componsate for an (Illegible Word) 10% reduction in floor strength. In the event that the floor has detolorated beyond this point, it is recommended that the owner contact a qualified shop for assistance."

I would appreciate a reply to this request for approval as soon as possible. If approval is granted, we will then proceed with the certification tests as outlined above.

Frank Tedesco

cc: W. J. ANTLEFORD/SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE; L. C. CODKIN; S. A. WELLER/SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.

ID: nht79-3.37

DATE: 03/27/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Salt Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of January 29, 1979, asking whether folding front seats on a two-door, 1978 Chevrolet Malibu are required to have locking devices.

The answer to your question is yes. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, (49 CFR 571.207) specifies in paragraph S4.3 that "a hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and a control for releasing that restraining device."

You stated in a telephone conversation with Hugh Oates of my office that your 1978 Malibu does not have such a restraining device, either manual or inertia-activated. Our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance has found, however, that the front seating system of the 1978 Chevrolet Malibu two door sedan does in fact have a seat back locking device that is actuated by an inertia system. This system has been certified by General Motors Corporation as meeting the performance requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207. A description of this system is found on page four of section one in the owner's manual. If the inertia restraint system in your vehicle does not perform as described, you should contact your Chevrolet dealer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

January 29, 1979

Office of Chief Counsel -- NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Please advise me whether or not the folding front seats on a two door 1978 Chevrolet Malibu are required to have a locking device.

Sincerely,

Barbara A. Loureiro -- INTERNATIONAL SALT COMPANY

ID: nht79-3.38

DATE: 03/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent petition to amend Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, to exempt active lap belts installed in conjunction with passive upper torso restraints from the anchorage location requirements of the standard.

The agency has determined that amendment of the standard as you request is unnecessary since active lap belts and their associated anchorages are not required to comply with Federal safety standards if installed voluntarily by a manufacturer in addition to a single, diagonal passive belt. The passive restraint requirement of Safety Standard No. 208 will require passive protection in frontal crashes and, either passive protection in lateral and rollover crash modes or the provision of Type I or Type II active belts for protection in lateral and rollover crash modes. The agency has previously stated, most recently in a letter to Volkswagen dated August 1, 1977, that the provision in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 allowing the substitution of any passive belt system (whether or not including a lap belt) for any other belt system otherwise required, is intended to apply to the provisions of S4.1.3(c) that specify either passive protection or the provision or Type I or Type II belts.

Since active lap belts installed in conjunction with single, diagonal passive belts are not required, they are voluntary additions by the manufacturer. The agency has stated in past interpretations that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the passive belt in this case) to comply with Federal safety standards. This means that your proposed restraint system would have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 both with and without the active lap belt fastened.

Since the change you requested is unnecessary in light of this interpretation, the agency will consider your petition withdrawn.

SINCERELY,

Ford Motor Company

December 14, 1978

Joan B. Claybrook Administrator Nationalk Highway Traffic

Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook: Re: Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Ford Motor Company (Ford), pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, and 49 CFR, Section 552.3, submits this Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210) hereinafter "the Standard". Ford requests the Standard be amended to exempt active lap belts used in conjunction with passive upper torso restraints from the location requirements specified in S4.3.1.1.

Ford plans to offer in two of its 1980 passenger cars an optional passive belt restraint system for front seat occupants. This optional passive belt system will include a passive upper torso restraint, knee bolsters and an active lap belt. The active lap belt when used will provide additional protection to occupants in side and rollover type accidents. The passive belt system will comply with the passive restraint criteria required by Section 4.5.3 of FMVSS 208 with the without the active lap belt being employed. One of the design configurations of the active lap belt being developed, however, does not meet the anchorage location requirements of the Standard.

In this design, the lap belt retractor will be located on the inboard side of the bucket seat and its anchorage is located forward of the zone specified in Section 4.3.1.1 of the Standard. This configuration will permit forward motion (translation) of the occupant in a crash, which in turn will allow the occupant's knees to contact the knee bolster -- a desirable circumstance. We believe permitting increased forward translation of the occupant will result in more efficient distribution of impact forces during a frontal collision.

As the Administration indicated in its preamble to Docket 72-23; Notice 5, published November 16, 1978, ". . . the agency has determined manufacturers should be given wide latitude in passive belt design in order to facilitate the early introduction of passive systems. . . ." In a similar sense, this request for amendment will contribute to earlier introduction of passive systems. Further, if this petition is not granted on a timely basis, it could hinder our efforts to introduce a passive belt option prior to the required incorporation date.

As Ford intends to certify that vehicles equipped with the passive belt meet the injury requirements of Standard 208 with and without the active lap belt, and because the additional active lap belt will provide added protection in side and rollover accidents, we believe this petition, if granted, should contribute to the safety of front seat occupants.

Ford, therefore, respectfully requests that the last sentence of S4.3 of Standard 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210) be amended as follows (added text indicated by underlining):

"S4.3 . . . Anchorages for passive belt systems that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, and active lap belt systems, installed in conjunction with such passive belt systems, are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office (Graphics omitted)