ID: nht81-3.45

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 24, 1981, letter directed to our Office of Enforcement in which you ask whether it would be permissible to test for compliance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, in a manner different than that prescribed in the standard. The standard states that a 14-inch long section of material shall be burned in a test oven until the flame reaches within 1 1/2 inches from the end of the material. You state that for some fabrics this requires a test that can extend to 10 minutes. In a test of this length, the heat buildup in the test oven can cause the glass front of the oven to break. You suggest that the test be discontinued after five minutes, and the burn rate calculated.

The test requirements of the standard are provided to show how the agency will test for compliance. However, it is not compulsory that a manufacturer adhere to every facet of the test procedures if it can satisfy itself that its product will comply with the standard by testing in another manner.

As you know, the standard requires only that the burn rate of a material not exceed four inches per minute. A 14-inch long section of material that has not burned completely to its end in five minutes obviously would not exceed the 4-inch per minute burn rate. Accordingly, we do not see any reason that you could not terminate the test five minutes after the starting point specified in paragraph S5.3(e) of the standard.

SINCERELY,

United States Testing Company, Inc.

July 24, 1981

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Standards Enforcement

Enforcement Director:

Our laboratory has been conducting tests for conformance to FMVSS 302 for many years. In the last couple of years we have noticed that certain materials although very slow burning create so much heat within the chamber that the heat resistant glass on the front of the cabinet shattered.

If one stays in strict compliance with the test procedure, the material being tested must be allowed to burn for a distance of 10 inches in the timing zone. In order to prevent excessive heat build up with possible harmful side effects, it might be suggested to abort the testing after 5 minutes of timing and calculate the burn rate on the length burned in 5 minutes.

Since this is not incorporated in any part of the test procedure, may we ask for your opinion in this regard.

Although we are highly concerned for the safety of our technical help and take all necessary precautions, we feel that the suggested approach should be either spelled out in future revisions or that a statement be issued by the Department of Transportation with regard to this problem.

G. R. Dufresne Assistant Vice President

ID: nht81-3.46

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Newbuilt Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1981, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our response. You request permission to install a "Ballistic Cube 2000" in 500 motor vehicles over a two-year period for experimental purposes. The "Ballistic Cube 2000" is a protective cubicle made of Lexgard that is installed inside a vehicle. Lexgard, a bullet-resistant material, does not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 205. You urge us to grant your request on the basis that the data generated from such an experiment would be relevant to a rulemaking proceeding initiated by General Electric. (General Electric has petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 205 to permit the use of protective bullet-resistant shields in vehicles. The agency granted this petition on November 28, 1980.)

Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which applies to all glazing materials used in passenger cars, buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. All automotive glazing materials, including those used in the Ballistic Cube 2000, must conform to the standard's requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) provides in part that no person shall sell or manufacture for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect on the date of the item's manufacture. Thus, if you were to manufacture for sale or sell a Ballistic Cube 2000 made of Lexgard or any other glazing material that does not comply with Standard No. 205, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A). (Section 108(b)(5) establishes that section 108(a)(1)(A) does not apply when the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is intended solely for export and is so labeled.) Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation of Section 108.

We believe that installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles could possibly generate test data that could be valuable to the agency in the previously mentioned rulemaking proceeding. Unfortunately, however, NHTSA does not have the legal authority to grant you permission to make such an installation. NHTSA does not have statutory authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer from the requirements of Section 108(a)(1)(A) as it relates to motor vehicle equipment.

Section 123 of the Act authorizes the exemption of motor vehicles from the safety standards. However, it does not authorize the exemption of motor vehicle equipment from equipment standards. As noted above, Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard applicable to glazing. Consequently, no exemption can be granted under section 123 that would excuse manufacturing, offering for sale or selling noncomplying glazing as part of the vehicles you wish to modify and sell, since you would also be considered an equipment manufacturer.

While the agency cannot grant you an exemption, it is pursuing the request made by G.E. regarding Lexgard. The agency anticipates issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking before the end of this year. If a final rule permitting the use of Lexgard were issued, you could commence manufacturing and installation of the Ballistic Cubes upon the effective date of that rule.

Even if that rule is issued, there may be other standards which must be considered. As we understand your materials, the installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles may affect the compliance of those vehicles with FMVSS No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, and FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. If you were to install a Ballistic Cube in a new vehicle, i.e., one that had not yet been purchased for purposes other than resale, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) if the vehicle no longer complied with one of those standards. Of course, since Standard Nos. 103 and 201 are vehicle standards, you could apply for an exemption from those standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would prohibit you from installing the Ballistic Cube in a used vehicle if such installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Standards 103 and 201.

The agency cannot definitively state whether installation of your cube in a motor vehicle would affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standards Nos. 201 or 103. NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination. The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. It would probably be difficult for the agency to offer an opinion concerning your compliance with Standard 203 regardless of the information you supplied, since that standard involves a dynamic performance test.

Apart from the requirements imposed by section 108(a)(1)(A) regarding compliance with safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have general responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 et seq., such manufacturers must notify purchases about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.

I am sorry we are unable to accommodate you in this matter. However, since it is beyond our legal authority to do so, we have no choice but to make the decision set forth in this letter. Please contact this office if you have any questions.

SINCERELY,

NEWBUILT ENTERPRISES

May 26, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Gentlemen:

Our firm has developed a new concept in the manufacture of bullet-resistant vehicles. This concept is known as the Ballistic Cube 2000 with U. S. Patent Pending, Serial No. 253,108.

Our "cube" concept utilizes a highly bullet-resistant material manufactured by General Electric Company, called Lexgard.

We are enclosing some literature which more fully explains our application of this Lexgard material and our Ballistic Cube 2000 concept. We also have met with Carl C. Clark, PhD, Office of Vehicle Structures Research, and his committee regarding our new concept.

We presented a video film and demonstration to the committee on May 21, 1981. If you have any questions regarding the technical nature of our application, we are quite sure Dr. Clark would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

We hereby request your permission and an assurance of non-prosecution for any violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, for an experimental period of two years. We desire to fabricate and install our units for on-highway use to develop facts and test data to substantiate the advantages of our application.

As you are probably aware, General Electric Company has petitioned the Department for amendments in the current standards. This petition has been granted and is currently being reviewed. They have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amend MVSS No. 205 by adapting the following new glazing category:

"Item IIX: Materials conforming to the requirements of Test Numbers 2, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 32 of ANSZ26.1 may be used as a bullet-resisting shield at levels requisite for driver visibility. The phrase "bullet-resisting shield" for the purposes of this standard means a transparent barrier mounted completely inside the vehicle, behind and separated from glazing materials that independently comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205. The bullet-resisting shield shall be conveniently removable for cleaning and replacement without disturbing the (exterior-glass) glazing material."

Our vehicle production during this two year experimental period is estimated as follows: Number of Units Description 100 Armored Transport Vehicles (Money Carriers) 50 Law Enforcement Transports (Buses, Vans) 150 Private Automobiles 150 Motor Coaches - Public Transportation 50 Rescue Units - Law Enforcement

The only area in which our concept does not comply with the current Standard No. 205 is that ANS Z26 does not permit the use of Lexgard BR in the windshield area. It does permit the use of bullet-resistant glass. Lexgard provides far better protection than BR glass. The windshield can also be removed quickly in case of an emergency.

Some of the advantages of our concept are as follows:

- Vehicle fuel economy is considerably improved by weight reductions in the glazing materials and in the required support and framing members. Lexgard is one-third the weight of BR glass.

- Lexgard BR qualifies as both an AS-10 and AS-11 glazing material under the requirements defined in the current standard, ANS Z26.1-1966.

- Unlike other bullet-resisting materials, Lexgard BR does not spall under impact.

- Lexgard BR provides a greater level of overall protection from ballistic impacts than other equivalently rated bullet-resisting products.

- The vehicles we are proposing to use are primarily operated by trained, skilled, professional drivers.

After reviewing the information, we respectfully request your favorable response to our request.

Should you have any further questions or require additional information, please contact us.

Rickey L. Newmayer President

Jerry A. Corbett Vice-President

Literature Omitted

ID: nht81-3.47

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: G & C Mills Plastics, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: It has come to our attention that you are distributing auxiliary wind deflectors for use on motor vehicles which may not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You received a letter from this agency dated July 13, 1979, and a later letter from the Department of Commerce which may have misled you concerning your responsibilities for complying with Standard No. 205.

This matter was brought to our attention by Mr. Paul Hingtgen who told the agency you had shown him the correspondence referred to above. I am enclosing copies of two letters we sent to Mr. Hingtgen which explain why and how the previous letter to you from this agency was misleading. From those letters, you will see that auxiliary wind deflectors are considered to be pieces of "motor vehicle equipment" and, as such, they must be made from glazing materials that are in compliance with Standard No. 205. We hope you will ensure that any wind deflectors you sell or distribute are in compliance with the standard, since you could be subject to substantial civil penalties if you fail to do so. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205.

If after reviewing the enclosed letters you have any questions, please contact Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

ENCLS.

ID: nht81-3.48

DATE: 12/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1981, requesting permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

You wish to import the cars to develop an emission control system which can be added to non-certified imported automobiles to enable them to pass Federal emission tests. The system will be "quite similar" to the system presently used on two U.S. certified BMW models. A secondary purpose is to develop bumper modifications meeting U.S. requirements. At the completion of the one-year test program you intend to bring the vehicles into conformity with the U.S. requirements.

In effect, the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements. As this purpose is inconsistent with the emission of this agency, your request is denied. Given your intent to conform the vehicles in a year's time, we suggest that you import them under bond pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting your test program.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH AND CERTIFICATION, INC.

October 19, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

It is hereby requested that permission be granted for the importation of five motor vehicles, as provided for by 19 CFR Part 12.80 (b)(1)(vii). These five vehicles will be used solely for the purpose of research, development, and testing. The five motor vehicles for which permission is requested are listed below:

1. BMW 323i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

2. BMW 528i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

3. BMW 635i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

4. BMW 745i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

5. BMW M1 (1982), BMW Motorsport, GmbH, Munich, West Germany.

The information required by 19 CFR Part 12.80 (c)(3) is enclosed. If any additional information is required, please contact me.

Robert P. McEvoy President

ENC.

REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO IMPORT NON-CERTIFIED MOTOR VEHICLES

There are, at present, several companies located throughout the United States engaged in the business of modifying non-certified imported automobiles to comply with EPA and NHTSA regulations. These companies do an acceptable job in that they enable the vehicles to pass the Federal emissions test and to conform to all applicable safety standards. However, the emissions related modifications generally decrease the vehicle's performance as well as decreasing the fuel economy. In addition, little consideration is given to the durability of the added emissions control systems.

The primary purpose of this research and development program is to develop an emissions control system, based on the Bosch Lambda closed-loop control system, which can be added to non-certified imported automobiles to enable them to pass the Federal Certification Test (40 CFR part 86). This system, when added to the vehicle, should result in little or no decrease in the vehicle's performance or fuel economy. Since there are no ill effects, there is no reason for the vehicle owner to tamper with the system or render it inoperative, as often happens with systems based on air injection or exhaust gas recirculation. It is felt that this system will be far superior to those currently being added to non-certified automobiles and will better meet the objectives of the Clean Air Act.

The proposed emission control system will be quite similar to the Bosch Lambda closed-loop control system presently being used on the U.S. certified BWM 320i and 528i models. It consists of the following major components.

1. An exhaust gas oxygen sensor to sense changes in the engine air-fuel ratio.

2. A valve to control the pressure (and therefore the volume) of the fuel injected.

3. An electronic control unit to operate the fuel valve based on input from the oxygen sensor.

4. A three-way catalytic converter.

5. An evaporative emission control system.

The research and development program will consist of the following steps:

1. Initial road and laboratory testing of the vehicles, as received, to obtain baseline measurements of emissions, fuel economy, and driveability.

2. Modification of vehicles to use unleaded fuel only.

3. Installation of evaporative emission control systems.

4. Modification of engine components as necessary to accept Bosch Lambda system components.

5. Modification and recalibration of Bosch Lambda and fuel injection components to deliver the desired fuel flow.

6. Selection and installation of three-way catalytic converters.

7. Road and laboratory testing of the vehicles to measure emissions, fuel economy, and driveability.

8. Additional road and laboratory testing to determine system durability.

It is estimated that this research and development program will have a duration of approximately one year.

It is necessary to import and test the five different vehicles previously listed due to the number of different engines available. All of the engines are in-line six cylinder designs, but they have widely differing displacements and power outputs. There are three different fuel injection systems (Bosch K-Jetronic, Bosch L-Jetronic, and Kugelfischer-Bosch mechanical), significantly different cylinder head and combustion chamber designs, and one model (the 745i) is turbocharged and available only with an automatic transmission. All of these factors have a significant effect on emission levels, and an emission control system developed for one model will not necessarily be optimum for another. Therefore, it is felt that all five of these models must be tested individually.

A secondary purpose of the research and development program is to develop a modification to the European style bumpers of the previously listed vehicles to enable them to conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581. Firms engaged in the business of modifying imported vehicles to conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581 generally exchange the European style bumper for U.S. style bumpers with the appropriate shock absorbing units. The disadvantages of this exchange are that a substantial amount of weight is added to the vehicle (thereby decreasing fuel economy) and the esthetic appearance of the vehicle is diminished.

It is felt that the European style bumpers can be modified to conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581 by the addition of a support structure behind the bumper to give it added stiffness and by the addition of shock absorbing units. Although this would add some weight, it would not be nearly as much as that due to the U.S. style bumpers. In addition, the esthetic appearance of the vehicle would remain unchanged.

This bumper development program is particularly important in view of the possibility of a relaxation of the Bumper Standard (46 FR 34100, June 30, 1981). Any relaxation would make the use and modification of the European style bumpers even more feasible.

It is estimated that this research and development program will have a duration of approximately one year.

All five of the test vehicles will be owned by Automotive Research and Certification, Inc., and will be under the direct control of the Corporation. The test vehicles will be kept at, and development work carried out at facilities owned or leased by Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. The EPA and the NHTSA will be advised of the location of these facilities. Laboratory emissions testing will be carried out in an EPA approved testing laboratory. All test results will be recorded in keeping with proper engineering practice, and will be made available to the EPA and the NHTSA at any time and with any frequency desired by the EPA and the NHTSA. The vehicle identification numbers will be recorded and will be submitted to the EPA and the NHTSA upon receipt of the test vehicles.

It is intended that upon completion of the testing program, the test vehicles will be used to obtain Federal certification for the five models in accordance with 40 CFR Part 86. In addition, the test vehicles will be brought into conformity with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR Parts 571, 580, and 581). When all Federal requirements have been met, and approval has been given by the EPA and the NHTSA, the vehicles will be sold.

ID: nht81-3.49

DATE: 12/23/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Lowenstein Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter asking whether children's car seats must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, specifically states that each material used in a child restraint system shall comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302.

SINCERELY,

M. LOWENSTEIN CORPORATION

November 25, 1981

Steve Oesch Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

One of the divisions within the M. Lowenstein Corporation is considering selling fabric to a manufacturer of infants' or children's car seats for use in upholstering these seats. We would appreciate your advisory opinion as to whether or not fabrics intended or promoted for this end use must comply with the DOTMVS 302 Fabric Flammability Standard.

Dr. John R. Holsten Director Of Regulatory Affairs

ID: nht81-3.5

DATE: 08/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Saunders Leasing System, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of our requirements concerning the presence of a "DOT" symbol on retreaded truck tires. Specifically, you asked whether a retreader would be in violation of any regulations if the retreader purchases casings (used tires to be retreaded) from which the "DOT" symbol has already been removed, and whether the retreader itself has a duty to remove the "DOT" symbol.

The retreader is not liable for using casings from which the "DOT" symbol has been removed, although any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business other than a retreader which removes that symbol from the casings is violating Federal regulations. The retreader does have an affirmative duty to remove the "DOT" symbol from the sidewall of retreaded truck tires.

The "DOT" symbol is required to appear on new truck tires as a certification that those tires fully comply with all the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), pursuant to the requirement of section S6.5(a) of that standard. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who removes this symbol would be removing an element of design installed on the tire in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Such removal is expressly prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). However, there is no prohibition against subsequent use of these tires for further manufacturing operations, such as retreading. Hence, a retreader using these casings would not subject itself to any liability for violating section 108(a)(2)(A) or any other regulation.

The retreader has an affirmative duty to remove the DOT symbol from the tire during the course of the retreading operation. Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed) sets forth the basic tire making requirements for retreaders of truck tires. Section 574.5 imposes two basic duties on truck tire retreaders - (1) the retreader is required to mold or brand a tire identification number into the sidewall of each tire it retreads, except those retreaded solely for the retreader's own use, and (2) the "DOT" symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable. Since there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truck tires, it follows that no "DOT" symbol may appear on the sidewall of those tires.

Should you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, feel free to contact me again.

ENC.

SAUNDERS LEASING SYSTEM INC.

June 10, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Please advise us concerning the potential violations of your regulations for which a retreader of truck tires would be held responsible if a said retreader purchased tire casings on which the D.O.T. identification markings had been buffed off. Also, please advise as to a retreader's duty to remove said D.O.T. identification markings in conjunction with his retreading process.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned.

Brian T. Williams Assistant Counsel

CC: BILL JENKINS TRUCK CENTRAL/DIST. CENTER

ID: nht81-3.6

DATE: 08/07/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter asking which of the specific requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, must be met by an automatic seat belt assembly that is installed in a vehicle in accordance with the automatic restraint requirements of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

The agency has stated in the past that automatic seat belt assemblies must meet the adjustment requirements of paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 that are incorporated by reference in S7.1, whether or not the automatic belts are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of Safety Standard No. 208. Automatic belts that are installed to comply with the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other requirements of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. As noted in your letter, paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 requires the automatic belt assembly to have a retractor that complies with Safety Standard No. 209. However, the requirements for retractor performance in Safety Standard No. 209 are based on other tests in the standard which are used for preconditioning or as prerequisites. Therefore, you state that it is not clear which requirements must be met by a retractor on an automatic belt assembly.

Paragraph S7.1 of Safety Standard No. 208 is only intended to incorporate by reference those provisions in Safety Standard No. 209 that are directly related to retractor performance. Therefore, all automatic belt retractors are required to comply with the following provisions of Safety Standard No. 209: S4.3(j); S4.3(k); and S5.2(a), (b), (j), and (k). Please note, however, that the retractors do not have to comply with paragraph S4.4 which is incorporated by reference in S4.3(k), since S4.4 relates to the performance of entire belt assemblies.

I hope this has been responsive to your inquiry. We apologize for the delay.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

APRIL 29, 1981

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration SUBJECT: Request for Interpretation - FMVSS 208 and 209 Requirements for Automatic Belts

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208, which specifies restraint system requirements for passenger cars, includes a paragraph (S 4.5.3.4) which modifies the applicability of FMVSS 209 to automatic belts. The paragraph actually states that an automatic belt which is not subject to perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of FMVSS 208 shall meet the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of FMVSS 209. We believe that the converse is then also true, i.e., that automatic belts which are subject to the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements do not have to meet the webbing, attachment hardware, and assembly performance requirements of FMVSS 209. On the face of it, and after examination of FMVSS 209, it would seem that these crash-tested automatic belts are then exempt from the entire FMVSS 209. The agency reinforced this belief in a letter of interpretation to Mr. Nield (Attachments 1 & 2).

However, this situation is confounded by a requirement, also in FMVSS 208 (ref. S 4.5.3.3(a)), that automatic belts comply with S 7.1 of the standard. This section, in addition to specifying belt fit requirements, requires a retractor which conforms to FMVSS 209. This conflict with the agency's letter of interpretation to Mr. Nield was brought up by Mr. Pepe (Attachment 3), and the agency responded with a further letter of interpretation to Mr. Pepe (Attachment 4). This letter stated that the automatic belts must meet the fit requirements of S 7.1, "and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference". To the best of our knowledge, this response to Mr. Pepe represents the agency's latest pronouncement on the topic.

This now brings us to our question: Exactly what specific parts of FMVSS 209 are applicable to automatic belts? The language of S 7.1 of FMVSS 208, and the letter of interpretation to Mr. Pepe would imply that the paragraphs which apply would be those relating to retractor performance. Mr. John Smreker of my staff suggested this to Mr. Hugh Oates, and he tentatively concurred. However, the interrelationship of the test sequences in FMVSS 209 and the requirements that one test serve as a prerequisite or precondition for another, would seem to bring in sections of FMVSS 209 which are specifically enumerated as excluded in S 4.5.3.4 of FMVSS 208. n1 We therefore need the agency to clarify exactly which paragraphs and which sections of FMVSS 209 do and do not apply to automatic belts.

n1 FMVSS 209 S 4.3(k) Performance of Retractor specifies that the retractor must meet the requirements of S 4.4 (after the tests in S 5.2(k)). However, S 4.4 is entitled "Requirements for Assembly Performance", a topic which is specifically excluded in FMVSS 208 S 4.5.3.4.

We will appreciate your prompt consideration of this matter.

Very truly yours,

Dietmar K. Haenchen -- Vehicle Regulations

Encl.

ATTACHMENT 1

Joseph Levin -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: Request for an Interpretation FMVSS 208/209

Dear Mr. Levin:

In reviewing the requirements presented in FMVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies in connection with the design of passive belt systems, there appears to be no distinction between the applicability of the standard as to active and passive belt systems. In reviewing FMVSS 208, Occupant Crash Protection However, paragraph 4.5.3.4 appears to exempt passive belt systems from compliance in any manner with the requirements of FMVSS 209. Since such an exemption would provide the design latitude necessary in the development of an optimum passive belt system, I would appreciate your confirmation that this exemption is intended.

In view of the extensive development efforts now underway in the engineering departments of many manufacturers, an expeditious response to this request would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT 2

George C. Nield

George C. Nield -- President, Automobile Importers of America

July 17, 1978

Dear Mr. Nield:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether passive safety belts are exempt from the requirements of Safety Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

The answer to your question is yes, with one exception, (Illegible Words) of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies that passive safety belts that are not required for the vehicle to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements of the standard must meet the requirements of Standard No. 209. Therefore, only passive belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 are exempted from the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

ATTACHMENT 3 Joseph J. Levin, -- Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

July 23, 1979

Reference: Your letter dated July 17, 1978 to Mr. George C. Nield, President, Automobile Importers of America - NOA-30.

Dear Mr. Levin:

I have this date, received a copy of your letter, referenced above, concerning the testing of passive seat belt assemblies to FMVSS No. 208 or 209 requirements. I feel that your letter may need some clarification or I need some further interpretation.

The question posed was pertaining to para. S4.5.3.4 of FMVSS No. 208. Your answer to that question was yes, that seat belt passive systems are exempt from FMVSS No. 209 testing with the exception of those that are not required to meet the perpendicular frontal crash protection requirements.

My interpretation of the Standard is that the aforementioned paragraph replaces only the assembly performance requirements of FMVSS No. 209, which is a Static Test, with the Dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 208.

Paragraph S4.5.3.3 of FMVSS No. 208 states that the passive belt assembly must meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 209 for retractor performance (para. S7.1 Adjustment). Therefore, all passive belt systems whether or not they are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements must conform to paragraph S7.1 (S4.5.3.3) of FMVSS No. 208. If my interpretation is not correct, then a retractor which will encounter more usage in a passive belt system, does not have to be tested for endurance per FMVSS No. 209 (i.e. resistence to environments, cycling and retraction force); but an active belt system which sees far less use, must meet those same 209 tests.

In view of testing programs presently in progress for several manufacturers an early reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Frank Pepe -- Assistant Vice President, Engineering Division

Frank Pepe -- Assistant Vice President, United States Testing Co., Inc.

ATTACHMENT 4

SEPTEMBER 12, 1979

Dear Mr. Pepe:

This responds to your recent letter concerning the requirements applicable to automatic seat belts under Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Specifically, you ask for confirmation that all automatic belts must comply with the adjustment specifications of paragraph S7.1 of the standard.

Your understanding is correct. Automatic seat belts must meet the adjustment requirements of paragraph S7.1, and those parts of Safety Standard No. 209 incorporated by reference, whether or not they are required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of paragraph S5.1 of the standard. Automatic belts that are installed to meet the frontal crash protection requirements are excepted from the other parts of Safety Standard No. 209 by paragraph S4.5.3.4 of Safety Standard No. 208. Please contact Hugh Oates of my office if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely, STEPHEN P WOOD -- NHTSA

ID: nht81-3.7

DATE: 08/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bajaj Auto Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 7, 1981 asking for an "exemption" from the requirement of paragraph S4.5.6 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 that an illuminated pilot indicator be provided in each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit.

In your opinion, the front turn signal lamps mounted on the handlebars of certain motor scooters that you manufacture can serve as pilot indicators; if a front turn signal lamp fails to operate, the failure is readily apparent to the operator; if a left turn signal lamp fails, there is an "appreciable change in the flashing rate" of the front lamp.

We concur in your interpretation. Although S4.5.6 does require the indicator, SAE Standard J588e Turn Signal Lamps, September 1970, incorporated by reference, requires it only if turn signal lamps are not readily visible to the driver. Because the operability of both front and rear turn signal lamps on the vehicles you describe may be confirmed by the front turn signal alone, the front lamp is the functional equivalent of a turn signal indicator, and a separate indicator need not be provided.

As this is a matter of long-standing interpretation of Standard No. 108 we have no plans to amend S4.5.6 to incorporate it.

SINCERELY,

Date: 7th July 1981.

To

The Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Subject: Petition for exemption from the requirements for illuminated pilot indicator (Illegible Word) to 49 CFR PARTS 571 S 108 Lamps - Reflective devices and (Illegible Word) equipment.

Dear Sir,

We are herewith making a petition in connection with the above stated reference for exemption from fitting illuminated pilot indicator. The facts concerning this are placed below for your kind consideration.

PETITION:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, S 4.5.6 states "Each vehicle equipped with a turn signal operating unit shall also have an illuminated pilot indicator. Failure of one or more lamps to operate shall be indicated in accordance with SAE Standard J 588 (e) Turn Signal Lamps" (September 1970) except where a variable lead turn signal flasher is used on a bus, truck, multipurpose passenger vehicle etc.

According to SAE J 568 (e) "Failure of one or more lamps to operate should be indicated by a "Steady On" or "Steady Off" or by a significant change in the flashing rate of the illuminated pilot indicator". Also it states "If any signal lamp is not readily visible to the driver, ther shall be as illuminated pilot indicator to give him a clear and (Illegible Word) indication that the turn signal system is turned "ON".

Also SAE J 568 (f) (Reference SAE Hand Book 1981) states "If one right and one left turn signal is not readily visible to the driver there shall be an illuminated indicator provided to give clear and unmistakable indication that the turn signal system is (Illegible Word)."

The Motor Scooters, we are manufacturing fall under the (Illegible Word) of Class I motorcycles. The scooters are provided with turn signal lamps both at the front and the rear. The front signal lamps, one left and one right are positioned on the handle bar and are directly in front of the rider and are fully visible to the rider. In our opinion those from signal lamps themselves can serve as pilot indicators based on the following analysis:

CASE (a): When both the signal lamps on one side, say right side are working, the front right lamp is visible to the rider.

CASE (b): If any of front signal lamp is not operating, the failure of it is directly observed by the rider.

CASE (c): The failure of rear lamp to operate is indicated by a appreciable change in the flashing rate of the front lamp.

In view of this, in our opinion, the vehicle conforms to the provisions of SAE J (e) and J 568 (f) without providing an illuminated pilot indicator.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBSTANCE OF ORDER

In view of the above points made we would like exemption from the requirement of illuminated pilot indicator and also an ammendment in 49 CFR PART 108 S 4.5.6 saying "If visible to the rider, (Illegible Word) front signal lamp can serve as the pilot indicator".

We are enclosing herewith photographs illustrating the location of the front signal lamps on our vehicle for your observation and kind consideration.

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER:

M. S. (Illegible Word) MANAGER (RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT)

BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED (Illegible Word)

(Illegible Word) - 411 055 INDIAN.

Thanking you, For BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

(M. S. (Illegible Word) MANAGER ((Illegible Word))

Enclosures Omitted.

ID: nht81-3.8

DATE: 08/17/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood for F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Antonio Cano - Sales Representative

COPYEE: F. BRENDT -- NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEVE WOOD

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your question, raised during a meeting with Carl Clark, Vernon Bloom, Harry Thompson and Edward Glancy, whether any Federal motor vehicle safety standard precludes the importation or sale of your anti-theft device called "Hyperblock." The device works by preventing release of the brakes. Installation of the device requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system.

By way of background information, the agency does not give approvals of vehicles or equipment. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act places the responsibility on the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. A manufacturer then certifies that its vehicles or equipment comply with all applicable standards. We note that the term "manufacturer" is defined by section 102(5) of the Act to mean "any person engaged in the manufacturing or assembling of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, including any person importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale." [Emphasis added.]

The agency does not have any regulations covering anti-theft devices that work by preventing release of the brakes. However, since installation of Hyperblock requires cutting into a vehicle's braking system, it may affect a vehicle's compliance with other safety standards.

If your device is added to a new motor vehicle prior to its first sale, the person who modifies the vehicle would be an alterer of a previously certified motor vehicle and would be required to certify that, as altered, the vehicle continues to comply with all of the safety standards affected by the alteration. In the case of Hyperblock, this would include Safety Standard No. 105, Hydraulic Brake Systems (49 CFR 571.105). You will find the specific certification requirements for alterers at 49 CFR Part 567.7, Certification. On the other hand, you as the manufacturer of Hyperblock would have no certification requirements, because we have no safety standards applicable to your equipment. However, an alterer would probably require information from you in order to make the necessary certification.

If your device is installed on a used vehicle by a business such as a garage, the installer would not be required to attach a certification label. However, it would have to make sure that it did not knowingly render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle with any safety standard. This is required by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which states in relevant part:

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 or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. . .

You indicated at the aforementioned meeting that installation of Hyperblock does not affect a vehicle's braking performance. You also indicated that Hyperblock maintains the integrity of a vehicle's split system. In addition to requirements in those areas, Standard No. 105 establishes brake system integrity requirements, requiring that a braking system be able to withstand a series of spike stops. You may wish to consider testing Hyperblock as to whether it affects a vehicle's compliance with the spike stop test requirements, if you have not done so already. We suggest that you carefully examine all of Standard No. 105's requirements to determine the degree to which installation of your device affects compliance with the standard.

While we do not have any opinion as to the safety of your particular device, we do have a general concern about the safety of anti-theft devices which work by preventing release of the brakes. We note that some manufacturers state in their service manuals that hydraulic brake locking devices should not be used on their vehicles.

Should a safety-related defect be discovered in your device, whether by the agency or yourself, you as the manufacturer would be required under sections 151 et seq. of the Act to notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers and provide a remedy for the defect.

Finally, in addition to the provisions of Federal law discussed above, there is a possibility of liability in tort should your device prove to be unsafe in operation. You may wish to consult a local lawyer concerning liability in tort.

ID: nht81-3.9

DATE: 08/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Blue Bird Body Company -- Thomas D. Turner

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/26/76 letter from Frank Berndt to W G. Milby

TEXT:

This responds to your July 13, 1981, letter asking whether the joints in your school buses that fall within the rear cargo compartment or rear engine compartment must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength.

Standard No. 221 applies to joints that connect body panels to body components. Body panels are defined to include those components that enclose the bus' occupant space. The agency has stated in the past that those portions of a bus falling below the floor level would not be considered as having a function in enclosing occupant space, and accordingly, joints in those area would not be required to comply with the standard's requirements.

Applying the standard to the joints that you question, appears that they would not be required to comply with the standard. The agency would consider the walls separating the cargo area or the engine from the remainder of the occupant compartment to be a continuation of the bus floor. Accordingly, joints falling behind and below those walls would not be required to comply with the standard. We do note, however, that the joints along the walls themselves must comply with the standard, since the wall panels enclose the occupant space and provide the separation of the engine or cargo area from the occupant space.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

July 13, 1981

SUBJECT: FMVSS 221: 41 F.R. 3872, 1-27-76

REFERENCE: 1. Letter Frank Bernett to W.G. Milby dated 4-26-76; N40-30

Dear Mr. Berndt, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221 School Bus Body Joint Strength covers body panel joints for body panels that enclose the bus occupant space. NHTSA has issued interpretations, see reference, that state components that are not considered to have a function in enclosing the occupant space (Example "...located entirely below the level of floor line...") are not considered a body component and are not subject to the standard.

The enclosed drawing 1034917 illustrates the configurations of a rear center luggage compartment and a rear engine "Pusher" bus. The cross-hatched areas of these cross-sectional views are the occupant space and body panels enclosing this occupant space are covered by the standard.

It is our interpretation that components located entirely within the shaded areas of the drawing, below the floor and below and/or to the rear of the walls between the occupant space and the compartments shown, do not enclose the occupant space, are not considered body components, and are not subject to the standard. Using this interpretation components such as trim panels inside the luggage compartment and panels forming the inner and outer skin of the body that are "located entirely" in the shaded area would not have to meet the joint strength requirements of FMVSS 221.

We feel that this interpretation conforms to the letter of the standard and subsequent interpretations and further conforms to the intent of the standard. We therefore request your early consideration of this matter and confirmation that our interpretation is correct.

Very truly yours,

Thomas D. Turner Manager, Engineering Services

slt

Enclosure

[April 26, 1976 letter from Frank Berndt to W. G. Milby omitted here]