ID: nht81-3.36

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 17, 1981, requesting NHTSA's confirmation that certain small, utility-type vehicles to be produced by General Motors would be classified as "light trucks" for fuel economy standards compliance purposes. In your letter you point out that these future vehicles, at least in base form excluding optional rear seats, would have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger-carrying volume, a criterion for classifying vehicles as light trucks under our regulations.

As you correctly note, SAE Recommended Practice J1100a specifies that cargo and passenger volumes are to be determined on the basis of a "base" vehicle, i.e., one without optional equipment. Further, EPA regulations set forth in 40 CFR 600.315-79(c) provide that all dimensions and volumes are to be determined from base vehicles without options, for purposes of grouping vehicles in classes of comparable vehicles. Strictly speaking, however, neither the SAE Practice nor the EPA provision explicitly apply to the determination of cargo-carrying volume for utility vehicles under our vehicle classification regulations in 49 CFR Part 523. Those regulations are silent on the issue of the inclusion of options for determining interior volume.

Nevertheless, to achieve uniform treatment for passenger automobiles and light trucks and to reduce the complexity of accounting for different variations of vehicles sold based on optional equipment, we interpret Part 523 to require that vehicle classification be determined on the basis of the vehicle without optional equipment installed. Therefore, we agree that two-wheel drive utility vehicles which are truck derivatives and which, in base form, have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger-carrying volume should be classified as light trucks for fuel economy purposes.

Environmental Activities Staff

General Motors Corporation

September 17, 1981

Michael M. Finkelstein Associate Administrator for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

In response to General Motors' March 31, 1980 question on vehicle classification for fuel economy purposes, your August 12, 1981 letter stated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act would not permit NHTSA to classify two wheel drive utility vehicles, i.e., Blazer and Suburban, as light trucks for off-highway use if they were under 6000 lbs. Vehicles designed to perform "truck-like" functions on-highway can also be classified as light trucks. We realize your agency must work within the requirements of the statute and the 6000 lb. GVWR limit cannot be changed by regulation. However, your letter did not consider the alternative on-highway classification route for utility vehicles to be classified as light trucks.

49 CFR Part 523.4(a)(4) of the fuel economy regulations allows a two wheel drive vehicle under 6000 lbs. GVWR to be classified as light truck if the cargo-carrying volume is greater than the passenger-carrying volume. The cargo and passenger volumes are determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J1100a, Motor Vehicle Dimensions (Report of Human Factors Engineering Committee, SAE, approved September 1973 and last revised September 1975). All dimensions are measured to the base vehicle and do not include Regular Production Options (RPO). Both our current Blazer and Suburban offer a folding second seat as an option. The cargo volume easily exceeds the passenger volume on the base models without the optional second seat. These models are designed for commercial use and their cargo carrying capability is significant without the second seat. Therefore, these vehicles qualify as light trucks independent of the 6000 lb. GVWR requirement. When we produce future downsized utility models, less than 6000 lb. GVWR, these vehicles will also qualify as light trucks if their cargo volume exceeds the passenger volume on the base vehicle.

More important, the critical issue in utility or multipurpose vehicle classification is their cargo carrying capability which is inherently derived from the base pickup truck. NHTSA agreed with this truck derivative implication in their Vehicle Classification Final Rule 42 F.R. 38366(1977). Since the same truck chassis is used for both the pickup and the utility models (Blazer or Suburban) they both are light trucks.

Our future product programs are proceeding according to the above interpretation of the vehicle classification regulation. Your confirmation of this interpretation would be appreciated as soon as possible.

T. M. Fisher, Director Automotive Emission Control

ID: nht81-3.37

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dayton T. Brown, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, as it applies to a continuous-loop, Type 2 seat belt assembly. You ask whether each structural component of such a seat belt assembly should be considered "common" hardware for both the pelvic and upper torso portions of the assembly.

Paragraph S4.4(b)(3) of Standard No. 209 specifies that the structural components in a Type 2 seat belt assembly that are common to pelvic and upper torso restraints shall withstand a force of not less than 3,000 pounds. Arguably, in a continuous-loop system with a sliding buckle latchplate, every component of the assembly could be considered "common" hardware since, as your letter points out, if one of the components should fail, the entire assembly could be rendered useless. However, the agency has stated in the past that testing for compliance with paragraph S4.4 of the standard on continuous-loop, Type 2 assemblies will be conducted by using a webbing clamp to segregate the portion of the assembly not being tested, i.e., to separate the pelvic and upper torso portions. This means that in continuous-loop systems the pelvic portion and the upper torso portion are not to be tested simultaneously. Although a test apparatus can be designed to simultaneously load a Type 2 continuous-loop assembly without the use of webbing clamps, the agency determined that such a test method is extremely difficult to perform. I am enclosing copies of two earlier letters of interpretation on this subject.

In light of this prior interpretation, the agency cannot conclude that all components of a continuous-loop system are "common" hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). Rather, it is our opinion that only the latchplate, buckle and the inboard seat belt anchorage are common hardware for purposes of S4.4(b)(3). The belt retractor and the "D" ring should be considered only part of the upper torso portion of the continuous-loop system.

I would point out that it is up to the vehicle manufacturer to determine and certify compliance with all applicable safety standards under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The agency does not provide prior approval of any safety design or test method. Therefore, you are free to test seat belt assemblies by any method you believe to be sufficient to establish due care that the assemblies are in compliance with Safety Standard No. 209. In our opinion, however, the test method mentioned in your letter would maintain a somewhat higher standard of performance than that currently required by the standard.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SEPTEMBER 3, 1981

Office of Chief Council -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

I am requesting an interpretation of paragraph S4.4(b)(3) within Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The referenced paragraph pertains to the structural loading of the "common" hardware within a type 2 seat belt assembly.

We have always tested the buckle tongue and buckle assemblies as common hardware. My concern is, with a type 2, one retractor assembly which has a free sliding buckle tongue. I feel that each structural component within the assembly (e.g., the retractor, the sling or "D" ring) could be considered common to both the pelvic and torso portions, due to the fact if one of the components should fail, the entire assembly would be rendered useless.

One possible argument to my feelings would be, that during the actual dynamic crash environment as opposed to the static loading environment of the standard, there may not be sufficient time for all of the loads to be evenly distributed.

The reason for my request, is that Dayton T. Brown, Inc. conducts certification testing for various seat belt manufacturers. We do not want to overburden them by insisting that all of their components meet the common hardware requirements, nor do we want to jeopardize the integrity of the system by not fully testing it.

Very truly yours, DAYTON T. BROWN, INC.;

D. R. Wachsmuth -- Senior Test Engineer

cc: D. Delve NEF32 -- NHTSA

ID: nht81-3.38

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter concerning the application of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, to a booster seat that uses a vehicle lap belt or lap/shoulder belt to restraint a child weighing 20 or more pounds. The following discussion answers your questions concerning the application of specific sections of the standard to a booster seat.

Section 4 of the standard defines a "child restraint system" as "any device, except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh not more than 50 pounds." Since the booster seat you described would be used to seat a child weighing less than 50 pounds in a vehicle, it is a child restraint system and thus must meet the requirements of the standard. The vehicle lap belt (Type I belt) or lap/shoulder belt (Type II belt) used with the system are specifically excluded by the definition of child restraint system and thus are not covered by the requirements of the standard.

You said that the booster seat would have no sides, back or fixed or movable surface directly in front of the child and asked how the standard would apply to such a design. The standard does not require a child restraint to have a back, sides or fixed or movable surface in front of the child. If such surfaces are provided, however, they must comply with the applicable requirements of sections 5.2.2, 5.2.3, and 5.2.4.

Each child restraint is required to meet the minimum head support surface requirements of S5.2.1. Section 5.2.1.2, however, exempts forward-facing child restraint from the minimum head support surface requirement if, "the target point on either side of the dummy's head is below a horizontal plane tangent to the top of the standard seat assembly when the dummy is positioned in the system and the system is installed on the assembly in accordance with S6.1.2." Thus, unless your design is within the exception of S5.2.1.2, it would have to comply with the minimum head support requirements of S5.2.1.1. Any head support surface would also have to comply with the applicable requirements of S5.2.3. and S5.2.4.

You asked about the application of S5.4.3.2 to a booster seat. Section 5.4.3.2 provides that:

Each belt that is a part of a child restraint system and that is designed to restrain a child using the system and to attach the system to the vehicle shall, when tested in accordance with S6.1, impose no loads on the child that result from the mass of the system or the mass of the seat back of the standard seat assembly specified in S7.3. (Emphasis added.)

As previously mentioned, the definition of a "child restraint system" specifically excludes Type I or Type II seat belts from the coverage of the standard. Thus, under that definition and the language emphasized above, the requirements of S5.4.3.2 do not apply to the lap and lap/shoulder belts used with a child restraint system. The agency, however, is concerned that when a vehicle lap belt is used with a child restraint system to restrain a child that the lap belt be positioned so that it does not apply impact loads to the abdomen of the child, the area most vulnerable to the forces imposed by the belt. Instead, the vehicle lap belt should be held in place by the child restraint so that it passes over the pelvis and thighs of a child, areas of the body best able to withstand the forces imposed by the vehicle belt. Based on the drawing of your restraint, we are concerned that the vehicle lap belt may not be properly positioned and securely held by the restraint. Instead, the lap belt may allow submarining and may apply impact loads to the abdomen. The agency is also concerned that the lap belt should be properly positioned and securely held so that no substantial inertial loads of the booster seat are applied to the child.

You stated that the booster seat would not have a harness system when it is used at a vehicle seating position equipped with a lap/shoulder belt. The standard does not require the use of a harness in a child restraint system. Section 5.4.3.3 of the standard provides, in part, that "each child restraint system . . . that has belts designed to restrain the child" must comply with the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the specific requirements of S5.4.3.3 on harness systems only applies if a manufacturer provides belts as a part of the system.

Finally, you said that the booster seat would be sold with an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness. The harness would attach to the vehicle lap belt when the booster seat is used at a vehicle seating position that has no lap/shoulder belt. The harness would not have a crotch strap. As discussed previously, section 5.4.3.3 of the standard specifies the requirements that a child restraint system which provides a belt system must meet. S5.4.3.3(c) provides:

(c) In the case of each seating system recommended for children over 20 pounds, crotch restraint in the form of:

i) a crotch strap connectable to the lap belt or other device used to restrain the lower torso, or

ii) a fixed or movable surface that complies with S5.2.2.1(c).

The purpose of subsection (c) is to require a belt or surface design that will prevent the child from submarining under the lap belt (i.e., sliding down and forward under the belt). Thus, if a crotch belt is not provided, the surface of the restraint must be designed to prevent submarining and comply with S5.2.2.1(c). For example, the seating surface of the restraint could be designed to prevent submarining.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

COSCO

Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel U.S. Dept. of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration July 27, 1981

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We are in the process of evaluating various new concepts for future child restraints we may produce. In this evaluation, we are uncertain what will or will not be allowed under the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard on designs that have a minimal "booster" seat and rely on the automobile adult lap belt or the auto adult lap/shoulder belt as a direct means of restraining the child.

If we had a design that was specified to be used only by children over 20 lbs., that had a firm seating platform with no sides or back, that by its design properly positioned the auto's three (3) point adult lap/shoulder belt for this age of child to provide adequate protection during dynamic testing, would such a design be allowed by the 213-80 juvenile car seat standard? It should be noted that the auto belts would be in direct contact with the child; there would be no other harness belts when used in an auto seat that provides a lap/shoulder belt; there would be no crotch strap at any time, but there would be an auxiliary tethered shoulder harness that would attach to the auto lap belt for use where no automobile lap/shoulder belt is provided. Finally, there would be no fixed or movable surface directly forward of the child. A drawing representing this concept is attached.

There are several sections of the standard that need interpreting on how they relate to such a design. They include Sections S5.4.3.2. through to Section S5.5 and others.

Would you please give us your official interpretation on whether this proposed design would comply with the 213-80 standard? We hope you will be able to give these questions your immediate attention.

Roy Knoedler Senior Industrial Designer

ENC.

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht81-3.39

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Letts Industries Inc.

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of October 15, 1981, requesting a "testing exemption" to import a 1976 BMW 3.0 CSi to study the wear characteristics of steering linkage components.

It is our understanding that the 1976 BMW 3.0 Si incorporates steering linkage components substantially similar to those used in the 3.0 CSi. As BMW sold the 1976 3.0 Si in the United States, examples should appear from time to time in the used car market. Accordingly, your request is denied.

You may, of course, import the 3.0 CSi, under bond, and bring it into conformity with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if you wish.

SINCERELY,

LETTS INDUSTRIES, INC.

October 15, 1981

DOT

ATTN: Chief Administrator, NHTSA

Gentlemen:

This letter is to request a one year testing exemption for one imported automobile with the following description: Manufacturer: BMW Year of Construction: 1976 Model: 3.0 csi Serial Number: 226 0602

Our company manufactures steering linkage components for automobiles and our objective would be to study the wear characteristics of similar components on the above described vehicle.

If there is any further information you need for the granting of this exemption, please advise. Thank you.

C. E. Letts, Jr. President

ID: nht81-3.4

DATE: 08/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jean's Portable Highchair & Car Seat

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter to Mr. Vladislav Radovich was forwarded to my office for a reply. You wrote concerning information on Federal regulations applicable to child restraint systems. In particular, you were seeking agency approval for the child restraint system you propose to market.

Manufacturers of items of motor vehicle equipment, such as child restraints, are regulated by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), a copy of which is enclosed. The Act does not authorize the agency to approve products. Section 114 of the Act requires "self-certification" by manufacturers that their product complies with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

In the case of your product, the applicable standard is No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. The new version of that standard, which went into effect on January 1, 1981, requires manufacturers to certify that their child restraint system can meet the dynamic test and other requirements of the standard. I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 213 for your reference.

As you requested, I am returning the pictures enclosed with your letter. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

ENCLS.

July 15, 1981

Vladislav Radovich Office of Crashworthiness National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Radovich:

We are enclosing copies of two of the letters we have sent out to get our car seat approved.

It was suggested that we write to you for your approval and to also get a copy of your Standard 213 Child Restraint Systems.

Statement of Facts:

1. This baby seat made of tough coated nylon is also anchored to metal car seat by one inch webbing and is absolutely safe.

2. With the use of car seat belts this car seat becomes the safest car seat available today and will protect the child just as securely as the adults are protected. With the use of "car seat belts" it will stand any collision teast.

3. Jean's Car Seat can be used in the front seat and is as safe as the back seat as long as "car seat belts" are used. (See brochure) This is a must with Jean's Portable "Car Seat" just as it is with other restraint units.

Picture #1 - I have sent this picture to show the 1 1/2" webbing anchor strap - the black one extending below the baby seat. This is to be used in cars in the back seat, that do not have shoulder straps. The lap seat belt must be threaded through the anchor strap which can be lengthened or shortened as needed and this keeps the top of the seat from going forward in a collision and is extra protection as the lap seat belt must go over the chair as is shown in the brochure under "Car Seat".

Picture #3 - shows shoulder seat belts in rear seat.

We sincerely hope you will advise us of your ideas and that you will approve our car seat. Please return pictures.

Willis. R. Dunkley Jean's Portable High Chair & Baby Products

June 4, 1981

Karl C. Clark Office of Vehicle Standards & Restraints

Dear Sir,

Your Mr. Robert Ingersol of the Safety Department at Salt Lake City, Utah, has referred your name to me as one who can advise me concerning the car seat and the safety factors involved when it is used as a restraining unit. The item is called "4 in one" Jean's Portable Highchair because it is not only a portable highchair but can be used as a car seat and a back pack and a cuddly coo.

You can see by the pictures enclosed it is an item we hope will assist many families in handling their young children. Our daughter, Jean, designed the unit and we added the car seat which if used properly with car seat belts will be perfectly safe. While it does not have the appearance of being as comfortable as many car seats on the market it does hold the child firm and yet is very comfortable and as safe as any adult in the car who uses "safety belts."

We need your advice in the matter and your suggestions when used as a "child restraintment". As you will note by the pictures, the car seat with the portable highchair attached can be set on a chair at the table instead of fastening it to the regular chair or a bench in the restaurant etc. It is also a very good back pack for babies and a cuddly coo. Thus it is a very practical item and will take care of the entire baby needs. We do not sell it as a plush item but a practical and convenient unit most young families can afford. As you will note the car seat folds up which makes it convenient as it folds into a small space when not in use. We have also enclosed most of the metal parts in a rubber covering which makes it very practical when sitting on car seats and furniture. We feel it has a marketable use for families and can be approved as a very safe car restraintment for children from 3 months until 2 years.

We will certainly appreciate an immediate reply on your judgement and ideas.

Thank you. Please return the pictures. . .

Willis R. Dunkley Jean's Portable Highchair & Car Seat

July 1, 1980

Michael A. Brown Consumer Product Safety Commission

Dear Mr. Brown:

Last summer my daughter Jean Brown was home from Germany for two months, she and her husband, a dentist, are spending three years in Viesbaden, Germany, to repay Uncle Sam for an Air Force scholarship they used for schooling in Washington. While home for two months she devised a portable high chair (see picture) later we turned it into a 3 in 1 - a portable high chair, a baby back-pack, and a cuddly coo. It seems safe and properly made for these items and people who use it love it. The patent is pending. Still further we have made a car seat from steel tubing which supports the portable high chair and which when fastened to the car seat belt provides a car seat which is comfortable, easy to handle, safe and light in weight and when not in use foldsup and it can be stored in small areas or placed in trunk of a car easily and handily. In addition when unstrapped from the seat belt it can be carried with the baby to a restaurant or other chairs and provides an opportunity for the baby to sit at the table with the parents. It can also be used on church pews or any seat or bench for that matter.

We have a Distributing Company in Phoenix as well as a lot of local stores who will purchase the 3 in 1 as well as the 4 in 1 units if it is a satisfactory consumer product and has your approval.

My daughter and her husband have two more years of school in Philadelphia for him to become an Orthodonist and they need all the help possible and for this reason, as their father, I am attempting to assist them with the "Jean's Portable High Chair."

From the pictures you can see our plans. We may have to change some buckles and the positive fasteners on the car seat need some refining etc. but the patent attorney has really encouraged us. Under seperate cover we are shipping it for your testing and approval. We need your guidance. Insurance Companies have already given us liability insurance and we have companies who will produce the portable high chair and a second manufacturing company who will tool up and produce the car seat on a mass production basis. The Phoenix distributing company now works with chain stores such as Skaggs, J.C. Penneys, etc and our hopes are already very high so we hope it meets with your approval. Jean's Portable High Chairx And Baby Products Inc., Willis R. Dunkley

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht81-3.40

DATE: 11/16/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Rolls-Royce Motors

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your recent letter to the Administrator, regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and its related requirements for the comfort and convenience of safety belts.

You stated in reference to paragraph S7.4.4, Latchplate Access, that "the standard as written is design restrictive in not permitting inboard location of the latchplate when stowed by virtue of requiring the latchplate to be located within the outboard reach envelope . . ." You requested that the wording be changed to permit either inboard or outboard reach envelopes.

Paragraph S7.4.4 was not intended to limit the location of latchplates to outboard locations. Latchplates located in the outboard reach must be located within the reach envelopes as specified. However, the requirement would not be applicable to latchplates located inboard, since there should be no difficulty in reaching latchplates in this location. It should also be noted that the requirement is not applicable to automatic belts.

We believe the Agency's response to the petitions for reconsideration of the comfort and convenience requirements will answer your remaining questions. We expect to issue that notice in the very near future.

You requested an early announcement of the final content of FMVSS No. 208 as it would apply to automatic restraints. On October 23, 1981, the Department rescinded that portion of the standard that would require automatic restraints. We have enclosed a copy of the news release pertaining to that action for your information.

Please contact this office if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

OCTOBER 9, 1981

R. PECK -- ADMINISTRATOR, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

FMVSS 208 - OCCUPANT CRASH PROTECTION

Dear Administrator,

As a company producing three models of car of wheelbase in excess of 114 inches Rolls-Royce Motors is closely affected by the continuing uncertainty in implementation of the automatic restraint requirements of standard 208. In addition to the uncertainty of introduction date the content of the rule is also subject to debate.

Rolls-Royce is in urgent need of guidance from NHTSA to permit us to use our limited resources in a constructive way to the benefit of our customers.

1. Comfort and Convenience Amendments

During 1979 Rolls-Royce commenced development of automatic restraints for production, both belts and ACRS. Following General Motors' decision late in 1979 to delay introduction of ACRS the Rolls-Royce programme was revised to install automatic belts in all models.

Production lead times dictated that parts for build in September 1981 should be given engineering release by March 1980. This meant that the proposed addition to standard 208 of comfort and convenience requirements were not accommodated in our initial production designs.

When the comfort and convenience amendments were finally adopted in the regulation on the 8th January with an effective date of September 1982 the necessary changes to our installation to ensure compliance were programmed in accordance with that 1982 date.

Amid the statements on regulatory reform announced by the Reagan administration early in 1981 was, on the 6th April a notice of intent to the Federal Register to "eliminate all requirements except belt tension and to defer the effective date for one year". (Actions to Help the U.S. Auto Industry, April 6 1981, NHTSA Action 8) Such action was promised for "on or about July 1". In anticipation of the promised action our programme was again revised. Since that time, over three months ago there has been no official action.

Some sources of information suggest that when the action on comfort and convenience amendments is announced the final ruling will contain accessibility requirements in addition to those for belt contact load. If this is to be the case we request further consideration of the following points concerning S7.4.4 which were not mentioned in the discussion of comments listed in the final rulemaking Docket 74-14 Notice 19.

1.1 The standard as written is design restrictive in not permitting inboard location of the latchplate when stowed by virtue of requiring the latchplate to "be located within the outboard reach envelope . . ." We request the wording be changed to permit inboard or outboard reach envelopes.

1.2 Some commenters requested clarification of the term "unhindered" referring to transit of the test block. In particular, is compression of soft surfaces permissible? In one of our installations compression by the occupant of the seat cushion will pre-empt compression by the test block, except that there is no occupant (dummy) specified for this test. Could you please clarify?

2. Automatic belt warning system

S4.5.3.3.(b)(1)(B) specifies two conditions for determination of the automatic belt being fastened, both requiring switching in the emergency release mechanism. This appears inconsistent with the permissible conditions for determination of a manual belt being fastened, for which S7.3(b) states "either by the belt latch mechanism not being fastened or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position".

In the case of our design of automatic belt which employs a buckle as an emergency release on the door frame the standard as written at present necessitates routing a cable from the buckle and down the frame. An additional option permitting switching with the belt extended from its stowed position would allow a switch to be fitted in the retractor and wiring to be included in existing loops in that area of the car. The additional option would be of considerable benefit to ourselves.

We believe the only objection to the belt extension option is the possibility that the belt may be withdrawn and knotted to simulate the belt being fastened. This would be less convenient then obtaining a spare latchplate and inserting it in the buckle to disable the warning mechanism by the existing option.

We propose amending the wording of S4.5.3.3.(b)(1)(B) by adding the following wording between ". . mechanism not being fastened" and "or, if the automatic belt is non-separable . .":-

"or by the belt not being extended at least 4 inches from its stowed position".

3. On the 9th April 1981 NHTSA issued an NPRM (49 CFR Part 571 Docket No. 74-14 Notice 22) proposing further amendment to the implementation of automatic restraint requirements in Standard 208. The comment date was 26th May.

In comment on that proposal Rolls-Royce Motors requested "an early announcement of a decision" (BGR/JO DT 19th May 1981, filed in the Docket). Since that comment date over five months ago Rolls-Royce have been unable to commit long term resources to automatic restraints for fear of further change in requirements resulting in wasted money. For manufacturers such as Rolls-Royce who must meet the September 1982 introduction date the long delay in announcing the uncertain outcome of the comments and public hearings mean that production lead times are being eroded. We urgently request an announcement of the final content of Standard 208.

We would be grateful for a quick response to these points.

For and on behalf of Rolls-Royce Motors Limited;

John OSBORNE -- Project Manager - Passive Restraints

ID: nht81-3.41

DATE: 11/18/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation regarding Safety Standard No. 207 as it would apply to a new seat design your company is considering. This design includes additional seat track forward of the seat track positions that are included as normal riding positions. Since there are no locking positions on this additional seat track, the vehicle seat cannot comply with the loading requirements of Standard No. 207 when in this position. Those requirements must be satisfied in any position to which a seat can be adjusted. You ask whether the extended track would be considered part of the seat track for purposes of Standard No. 207 and for purposes of the adjustment requirements in testing under Safety Standard No. 208.

The answer to your question is yes unless some mechanism is included which will automatically return the seat to a locked position on the track when the seat back is in its upright position and no force is being applied. Most motor vehicle seats will travel some short distance forward of the forward-most adjustment locking position. However, they are designed to return to the nearest locked adjustment position when the adjusting force is removed from the seat, i.e., when the occupant releases the adjustment lever and stops pushing the seat forward. Many seat designs accomplish this result by spring-loading the seat. Therefore, the seat track portion labeled "A-B" in your diagram would not be considered part of the seat track for purposes of Safety Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 208 if the seat is designed to return automatically to position "B" and lock when the seat back is in its upright riding position.

None of the other alternative solutions you mentioned would be sufficient. All of the alternatives fail to prevent the seat with its seat back in the upright position from being adjusted to a position on the "A-B" portion of the track, all of which are unlocked positions. With one limited exception, none of the alternatives would aid the seat in meeting the forward and rearward loading requirements when the seat is adjusted somewhere on the "A-B" portion of the track. The exception concerns the alternative of strengthening the stopper at the "A" position. This alternative might enable the seat to meet the forward loading requirements of Standard No. 207, but only when the seat was adjusted to the "A" position on the "A-B" portion of the track. The seat would not be able to meet the aft loading requirements at the "A" position, however.

I would like to point out that the agency does not provide advance approval of any device or element of design in a motor vehicle. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act makes the vehicle manufacturer responsible for determining whether its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and for certifying that compliance. This letter only represents the agency's informal opinion based on its understanding of the information supplied in your letter.

Also, if you desire to have the information concerning this seat design treated as confidential business information by the agency, you will have to submit sufficient information to justify such treatment. I am enclosing proposed guidelines for seeking confidential treatment. If you do not choose to follow this procedure, we will have to place this interpretation in our public redbook file for the benefit of all interested persons.

ENC.

ID: nht81-3.42

DATE: 11/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fruehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you asked if retreaded tires could be mounted on new trucks and trailers, and what requirements those tires would have to meet.

Retreaded tires can be mounted on new trucks and trailers without violating Standard 120. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a 1978 interpretation concerning Standard 120 which explains that retreaded tires can be mounted on new trucks and trailers in compliance with the standard. The only requirements those tires would have to meet is that the sum of the maximum load ratings for the tires would have to be at least equal to the gross axle weight rating of the axle to which they were fitted, as specified in section @ 5.1.2 of the Standard 120. As explained in the attached letter, there is no requirement that the retread meet the requirements of Standard 119 because those requirements are inapplicable to retreads. Further, there is no requirement that the retreads have the DOT symbol.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

ID: nht81-3.43

DATE: 11/24/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dart Transit Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent telephone conversations with Roger Fairchild of this office, in which you requested our approval for Freuhauf to change the vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) on certain of its trailers which your company purchased. As we understand your situation, your company intended to purchase and Freuhauf intended to provide you 1980 model year trailers. The trailers you actually received had Freuhauf's statements of origin indicating they are 1980 model year trailers. However, the first character of the third section of the trailers' VIN's is apparently a "B," thus indicating that the model year is 1981. Freuhauf reportedly wishes to correct the VIN's and use an "A" instead of a "B," thus indicating the 1980 model year. We understand too that these vehicles were not manufactured in serial sequence, but are scattered randomly through the manufacturer's production run.

Based on our understanding of the facts you have provided us, this agency does not have any objection to this change being made by Freuhauf. The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 provide the manufacturers with substantial latitude regarding model year designation. S4.5.3.1 of the Standard requires that the first character of the third section of the VIN indicate the model year. S3 of the Standard defines "model year" as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than 2 years." In issuing the standard, the agency anticipated that once the manufacturer of a discrete vehicle model switched from designating those vehicles with a given model year (e.g., 1983) to the next model year (i.e., 1984), the manufacturer would uniformly designate all vehicles with that new model year until it switched to designating all vehicles uniformly as being produced in the following model year (i.e., 1985). More than any other user of the VIN, the manufacturer itself would benefit from this practice since it promotes the orderliness of records. However, Standard No. 115 does not actually require that this practice be followed. Further, the departure from the practice in a limited circumstance should not pose any significant practical problem for the users of the VIN's of trailers in question.

ID: nht81-3.44

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K. G. Moyer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/1/88 (EST) LETTER FROM MICHAEL FINKELSTEIN TO CARL KAPLAN (STD. 108); 3/7/88 MEMO FROM ERIKA JONES; 5/2/84 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1981, about your "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released." You wish our permission to install the device for experimentation and testing on other vehicles, as well as an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 whether your device is allowable.

As you know, the agency has devoted considerable effort to improve rear braking signals, culminating in its proposal that passenger cars be equipped with a single high-mounted stop lamp on the centerline of the vehicle. The concept of a pre-brake application signal is a familiar one to us, but the agency has conducted no formal research with respect to it, and in view of its stop-lamp proposal, is unlikely to do so. The technical issues that we consider relevant to your concept are (1) whether most rear-end accidents are preceded by a "panic" stop by the struck vehicle, (2) whether panic stops involve unique driver behavior that can be reliably discriminated from non-panic stop behaviour and used to trigger a pre-braking signal, and (3) whether the resulting signal will automatically result in a decrease in the reaction time of following drivers that is equal to the early warning time it provides. We know of no scientifically acceptable data that support these critical assumptions. We are especially concerned that a high rate of "false alarms" may lead to a decrease in the overall warning value of the stop lamp signal itself, i.e., the "cry wolf" phenomenon. This could lead to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any proposed system.

Paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines a stop lamp as one whose operation indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking."

Your device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, which could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. We view any use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than as defined, as an "impairment" within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if the device is installed as original equipment. If the device is sold in the after-market, our laws preclude modifications that "render ineffective in whole or in part" required lighting equipment, if the modifications are performed by a person other than the vehicle owner. We would consider your system prohibited by this provision as well.

Noting your comment that the device may be used for testing on school buses, this means that there is no prohibition under the laws that we administer which would forbid a school district from installing your device on its fleet. Such a modification would be subject to laws of the jurisdiction in which the school bus is registered and operates.

SINCERELY,

September 22, 1981

To: Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTS Administrator

Subject: Installation of Automatic Safety Alert Device on Motor Vehicles

I currently have an alert device which automatically turns on the stop lights of the vehicle when the accelerator is released. This installation is simple, inexpensive and easy to install. I am requesting your consideration and permission for installing this device for experimentation and testing on school busses and other motor vehicles.

I am also requesting interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 to determine if this device meets the requirements for installation on motor vehicles under this provision.

On September 15, 1981, a vehicle (1981 Citation), with this alert device installed, was inspected by Dr. Carl Clark and his associates and all pertinent data is on file in his office.

If further testing or inspection of this car is required, I would return to Washington at any time. I would also consider allowing the use of this car for a period of testing by your office or will furnish any additional information required.

If interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 is not favorable, or if this alert device is not considered under this provision, I will petition for modification of the rules to allow use of this device on motor vehicles on an individual basis, in accordance with Part 552.

Your early consideration of this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Kenneth G. Moyer

PETITION

To: Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 SEVENTH STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

I, Kenneth G. Moyer, of 6400 Goldbranch Road, Columbia, S. C. 29206, petition for a change in rulemaking standards to allow this Automatic Safety Alert Device to be installed on motor vehicles, on an individual basis, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

Claim: An early-warning electrical system for vehicles of the type characterized by a normally open warning switch, mechanically co-operating with the accelerator pedal and throttle linkage and electrically connected to the vehicle rear light circuit to automatically light the brake lights when the pressure on the accelerator pedal is removed. The brake lights which are lit by applying pressure to the brake pedl are red in color and are universally recognized as indication that the vehicle is about to slow or stop. This alert device allows the brake light system to be activated when there is no pressure on the accelerator pedal.

The primary object of this device is to provide a simple and inexpensive warning system to be installed on vehicles without making changes to the linkage system and is designed to operate separately of the brake pedal switch.

This warning system alerts following drivers that the vehicles speed is decreasing and, therefore, provides time for the following driver to avoid a dangerous condition.

This alert device has been approved for use in the state of South Carolina. My contact is Maj. Lanier, phone-803-758-3315, of the South Carolina Highway Department.

I am to meet with the Highway Transportation Department in ten days to discuss installing this device on South Carolina school busses. My contact is Ralph Hendricks, phone-803-758-2762.

One U. S. car manufacturer and one foreign firm have requested information on this alert device for possible installation on new cars.

In view of the enclosed information, I request this petition be considered for a change in rulemaking standards, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

With this alert device installed on motor vehicles, it could possibly decrease the excessively high rate of rear-end collisions.

No alert devices are installed on any vehicles except those I personally own.

This alert device does not affect the normal operation of the brake pedal to operate the stop lights when the brake pedal is applied.

I am awaiting the results of consideration by the National Highway Safety Administration.