ID: 10421nam

Mr. Robert L. Hart
Gerry Baby Products Co.
1500 E. 128th Avenue
Thornton, CO 80241

Dear Mr. Hart:

This responds to your letter concerning your company's plans for manufacturing a new type of child restraint system, model #632. The new child restraint system has a removable five-point belt system. You state that, "When the [5-point] restraint is removed, it is a booster seat according to the definition in FMVSS 213." You explain that Gerry is developing the final name for the product from among a list of nine possible names, and you want to make sure that none of the names would violate any provision of Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems."

As a general matter, Standard No. 213 has no restriction on how a child restraint system can be named. The standard defines several types of child restraint systems, such as "booster seat," "backless child restraint system," and "belt-positioning seat." (Section S4 of Standard No. 213.) These definitions are used to determine which of Standard No. 213's performance and test requirements apply to a particular seat. For example, if a child seat fits the definition of a backless child restraint system, then the seat must meet the performance and labeling requirements for backless child restraints, when tested to the test specifications set forth in the standard for backless child restraints.

Thus, the definitions in Standard No. 213 determine the applicability of particular performance and test requirements. Manufacturers are not required to name their restraints using the terminology provided in the standard. However, if a child seat fits the definition for a particular type of child seat under S4 of Standard No. 213, the seat will be evaluated to the criteria for that type of child seat, regardless of the name the manufacturer has given the seat.

While Standard No. 213 does not expressly restrict how you name your product, you should consider the following when making your decision. Three names on your list refer to model #632 as a "convertible" child seat ("convertible car seat," "convertible/booster," "convertible toddler seat"). Standard No. 213 does not define what is a "convertible" child seat. However, the term has long been used in the child passenger safety community to refer to a child restraint system that can be used rear-facing for infants and forward- facing for older children. We are concerned that calling model #632 a "convertible" seat could possibly confuse consumers about its suitability for infants, which may result in some consumers using the restraint with an infant. With that possibility in mind, we suggest you avoid using the term "convertible" in naming the model #632 car seat.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Philip R. Recht Chief Counsel d:1/4/95 ref:213

ID: 1983-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/08/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mr. A. Forbes Crawford

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 10, 1983, to Secretary Lewis recommending that he make an "administrative decision" that would exempt foreign manufacturers from compliance with National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations for vehicles conforming to standards of their country of origin, and which are produced in quantities "up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100cc."

The Department does not have the legal authority to issue a directive of this nature. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act requires that all motor vehicles offered for sale in the United States meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, unless temporarily exempted. No permanent exemption is authorized for any type of vehicle, and no discretionary power is provided for this purpose. Authority of a nature responsive to your request could be provided only by a Congressional amendment to the Act.

As a former principal of Jet Industries which was the beneficiary of one of the NHTSA temporary exemptions (No. 76-1) and an extension of it, you are aware that a mechanism exists by which you may participate in the American market in a manner that takes into account both your economic realities and our safety concerns.

SINCERELY,

PERSONAL

January 10, 1983

Drew Lewis, Secretary of Transp. U.S. Government

Dear Mr. Lewis,

I am one of millions of U. S. Citizens who are sorry you are leaving the Government. We understand and wish you every success in your new career. I occassionally "kid" myself into believing I helped you solve the Air Controllers Strike by sending you a telegram suggesting that unemployed Commercial Airline Pilots be hired as controllers. At least Percy Woods, President of United phoned to thank me because I had suggested the idea to him (My having help start United in 1931).

The purpose of this communication is to ask you to make an administrative decision, before leaving the Government, which can be very helpful in relieving a small segment of unemployed Automobile workers. Based on my having been involved in the Tractor and Truck business for many years, I had tried to obtain permission from the NHTSA and EPA to start the manufacture in the U. S. of two models of Foreign made small vans (not made in the U. S.) on the condition that they be excluded from NHTSA requirements for up to 50,000 units per year. I was offered 10,000 units but the Foreign manufacturers would not commit on less than 50,000 units. I didn't press EPA for that reason but their Washington, D. C. and Flint, Michigan offices could not give me a simple answer on whether a 1600 cc engine could be exempted. After 30 days I received regulations the size of a telephone book in which I couldn't find the answer. In California, where anti-pollution requirements were tougher than Federal, a five minute phone call elicted a direct answer that such size motor was exempted.

If you could give an Administrative Directive which enabled Foreign manufacturers to assemble up 50,000 units per year of vehicles that meet their conutries' safety and pollution requirements, and get EPA to confirm the action, there is a strong possibility that I can arrange for the following assembly in the U. S.:

1. Fiat Motors Citivan 980 CC This is a van version of Light carriers as exemplified by imported Japanese Pickups. It is 30 Inches shorter and has a 12" longer & 2" wider carrying area protected from weather and pilferage.

Fuji Heavy Industries Subaru 600 CC Also a van version of light carrier 52 inches shorter than the Ford Courier.

Attached is a possible Administrative Directive for NHTSA & EPA approval.

A. Forbes Crawford

PROPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE

Amendment to NHTSA & EPA Regulations

"The Regulations are hereby amended to exempt manufacturers (or assemblers) of Automotive Vehicles (Cars & Trucks) from NHTSA (Also EPA) regulations as long as such vehicles comply with traffic and anti-pollution requirements in the Countries where they are currently produced, or have been produced within current regulations of such country at any time during the past five years. In addition, such exemption shall apply to such vehicles designed, engineered and committed for production in the U. S. at the discretion of the Administrator. Such exemptions shall apply for units production up to 50,000 per year with engines not exceeding 65 cu. in. or 1100 cc."

COMMENTS

In connection with the proposed exemption of U. S. vehicles up to 50,000 Units per year. U. S. Manufacturers may want to come out with a new type of vehicle. It used to be that major manufacturers would not go into production unless they could predict a market of at least 40,000 per year.

Added to the proposed amendent should be: -"Proposed manufacturer of such vehicles shall be allowed to import 10,000 per year of the vehicle proposed for production in order to establish a dealer market for such vehicles. This exemption should apply for at least two years or longer at the discretion of the agency - depending on the variables involved in getting into production - such as arranging for U. S. manufacturers to tool up to manufacture components or joint venture manufacture of sub assembly units.

Larger manufacturers in the U. S. are automating many of their operations and causing many existing plants to become obsolete. These plants and unemployed workmen in the communities would be ideal for this program.

January 10, 1983

To: Drew Lewis

From: A. Forbes Crawford

Subject: Possible Accelerated Action

In the event of the proposal I have made for an amendment to the regulations is an action that could take a lot of time, will you consider just making an administrative decision on the two companies -- Fiat and Fuji Industries. I believe this can be done. Then if you can write letters to the following giving them exemptions as suggested (including a commitment from EPA), we can accelerate the projects:

Fiat Motors - Torino, Italy (Attention Giovanni Agnelli, Pres.)

Fuji Heavy Industries - Tokyo, Japan (Attn: S. Kikuchi, Director)

International Vehicles Ltd. - Vancouver, B. C. (Attn: A. F. Crawford, Pres.)

I have already received tentative consent from the first two and of course control the last one covers a newly designed vehicle (Four Wheel Steered) which I will manufacture in the U. S. if I can receive the exemptions. Upon receipt of letters for the first two I will go to Japan and Italy to work out plans for starting each project - because they do not conflict with each other. In fact, each compliments the other.

[Attachments in file in Chief Counsel's Office]

MIDDLEKAUFF, INC.

September 27, 1982

Frank Berntt Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berntt:

This is in reply to your letter to us as of August 12, 1982 regarding our petition of July 16, 1982 for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301. As we pointed out to you in our letter of July 16th, it is necessary that we do make some slight alteration on the vehicles as we are forced to relocate the filler cap on the vehicle, and extend the filler hose from the gas tank which is mounted between the frame members at the front of the vehicle to this gas cap. While all due care has been exercised by us in this operation in duplicating the hose and clamps used by the original manufacturer, it is necessary for us to furnish the gas cap mounted on the side of the vehicle for filling purposes. This is the point that disturbed us in some degree.

Since writing you, we have been furnished with a print outlining the complete installation of the utility body as required by AM General Corporation on their vehicles which includes a recessed cup for the gas cap itself on the side of the vehicle. While our engineering studies reveal that this installation is in compliance with 301-75 inasmuch as the complete installation is done in accordance with the print furnished by AM General, it is their feeling that rather than have us Certify the vehicle as the final manufacturer, they would consider us as a sub contractor completing certain phases of the work for them. Therefore, they would prefer to Certify the vehicles themselves as a complete truck after our work, and for this reason would like us to have the exemption referred to in our files for safety as well as legal reasons.

In order to satisfy AM General Corporation, and as we can see no hardship on the part of the Department of Transportation as well as the small number of vehicles involved, we would very much appreciate having you see your way clear to issue such exemption for a three year period to us. We would appreciate having you review our request as we believe the possession of this exemption would help cement our position with AM General and allow us to comply with their thinking as outlined in paragraph two above.

Thanking you for your consideration.

F. E. Bettridge Board Chairman

cc: JIM FORRESTER

ID: 19664.ztv

Mr. Ron Dawson
4224 Quince Road
Portsmouth, VA 23703

Dear Mr. Dawson:

This is in reply to your e-mail of March 3, 1999, telling us that you are preparing a business plan to produce a new kit car. You have asked about our policy regarding kit car manufacturing, and, specifically, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that apply to a kit car manufacturer.

Under your plan, you would sell "all necessary parts required to formulate an automobile except for engine and gear box." These parts would be new. You would sell the kit of parts "in any stage of assembly from a box of unassembled parts to a completely assembled automobile minus engine and gearbox." The purchaser of the kit would provide "a previously owned or used engine and gearbox." The purchaser would assemble, or complete assembly of, the vehicle. The vehicle would be for personal use, on public roads, and not for resale.

We have no regulations that apply per se to the manufacture of kit cars. However, a seller of motor vehicle equipment is subject to the statutory requirement that the equipment item must conform to all applicable FMVSS, if any are in effect that cover the equipment item. We find that, generally, equipment manufactured in the United States is certified by its manufacturer as conforming to applicable FMVSS. The items of passenger car motor vehicle equipment that are the subject of specific Federal motor vehicle safety standards are brake hoses (FMVSS No. 106), items of lighting equipment (FMVSS No. 108), pneumatic tires (FMVSS No. 109), brake fluids (FMVSS No. 116), non-pneumatic temporary spare tires (FMVSS No. 129), glazing materials (FMVSS No. 205), and seat belt assemblies (FMVSS No. 209).

This equipment is required to be marked with a DOT symbol as a certification of compliance (alternatively, the containers of lighting equipment other than headlamps may bear a certification statement). Therefore, you may rely upon this certification, unless NHTSA or the manufacturer has determined that a noncompliance exists.

We have encountered compliance problems from time to time with equipment manufactured outside the United States, particularly lighting equipment. Were you to import noncomplying equipment for a kit, we would regard you as the manufacturer of the equipment and responsible for notifying purchasers and remedying the noncompliance through repurchase of the equipment, or replacing it with a complying item, at no expense to the owner, even if the equipment were certified. You would also be liable for civil penalties for importing and selling noncomplying equipment if it is not certified. If the noncomplying equipment is certified, you would not be liable for a penalty unless you actually knew the equipment was noncompliant.

You may assemble the vehicle up to the point of installation of its power train without becoming its manufacturer. However, if you decided to furnish an engine and transmission with the kit, we would consider you the manufacturer and responsible for the vehicle's noncompliance with all applicable FMVSS, and certifying compliance, even though the vehicle would be assembled by another person. In the situation you describe, in which you do not furnish the engine and transmission, the person installing the engine and transmission, whether the kit purchaser or a commercial entity such as a repair facility, would be regarded as the manufacturer of the vehicle, and responsible for its compliance with the FMVSS. The fact that the kit car may be equipped with a used transmission and engine is not sufficient to relieve it of the legal necessity to comply with all FMVSS that apply to motor vehicles manufactured from all new parts.

Of course, the kit car must meet all State and local requirements in order to be registered and operated.

If you have any questions, you may call Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.3/29/99

ID: nht68-1.27

DATE: 06/21/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: ATECO Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letter to Mr. Slagle dated March 8, 1968, in which you ask for information as to your company's responsibility under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and regulations issued pursuant to the Act.

As I understand the description of the modification your company makes to trucks the only standard now in effect that is applicable is Standard No. 205, the glazing standard. Therefore, the glass that you install in place of the original glass in the truck cab would have to comply with this standard.

Your company might also be affected by the enclosed Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Your particular attention is directed to Docket No. 2-12 which would, if finalized, make the standard concerning anchorage of seats (No. 207) applicable to trucks.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

March 8, 1968

National Highway Safety Bureau Edwin Slagle, Director Motor Vehicle Safety Performance Service

Dear Mr. Slagle:

I talked to David Schmeltzer who I understand is in the Office of the Chief Council of the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Schmeltzer advised me to approach you for information concerning matter mentioned in the above subject.

This company is a manufacturer and a distributor of motor truck mounted equipment. We are generally to date and are currently practicing the requirements set forth in Federal Regulation #108 and #111 effective January 1, 1968.

Or to January 1, 1968, we had modified Ford, Model C-600 tilt-cabs by handing the original configuration approximately 15-1/4" longer than standard. We incorporate within this change two (2) one-man seats behind the driver-passenger compartment. One of these seats is located on a right angle behind the driver's seat and faces the street side of the vehicle. Another seat is installed behind the passenger's seat in reverse position to the one mentioned. We did not furnish any escape hatch, yet the glazed opening to which the passengers faced was made larger than the original factory furnished glazing. This glazing was set in rubber and locked in place through the use of standard rubber key locks that are used for this purpose in the motor truck industry. This glazing principle did not offer a push-out convenience, yet we at this time could leave the key lock strip out, thereby offering a convenience of a push-out window. We did not change or modify the factory furnished rear window glass.

We now wish to make similar changes to the equipment that we have described. We have researched all printed material and instructions that have been made available to us, to determine a correct and legal path to follow, but we have not found any information by which we should proceed, therefore we have taken the liberty to approach you for help and advice on this matter.

Attached please find the copy of a sketch of the equipment that we are concerned about, on which we have shown a dotted line vertically on the rear portion of the truck cab to indicate the approximate length that we extended the cabs done prior to January 1, 1968.

We need correct information and printed material or a written testimonial from a proper Federal agency telling us if we can or cannot make these changes to fulfill our obligation to Federal requirements.

We wish to take this opportunity to thank you in advance.

Very truly yours,

ATECO EQUIPMENT COMPANY--

R. A. Moynihan

Sales Manager - Truck Equipment

JWT FILE JWT S.O. David Schmeltzer RAM(Illegible Words)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 23894.ztv

Mr. Roger Williams
3140 S. Tropical Trail
Merritt Island, FL 32952





Dear Mr. Williams:

This is in reply to your letter of December 13, 2001, to Taylor Vinson of this Office, with whom you had spoken previously.

As we understand it, you wish to buy a Land Rover, in England, that was manufactured between 1967 and 1975. You would remove the old body and place a new body on the "unrestored" chassis, retaining the original "drive line and engine." The "new" body could be from a new 2001 or 2002 Land Rover, or from a used or salvage Land Rover. We understand that you would then import the Land Rover into the United States. You stated that the vehicle would be imported for your personal use and that you are "not a vehicle business." You are interested in knowing how the laws that we administer would affect your plan.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) that we administer apply to any motor vehicle manufactured on or after January 1, 1968. However, under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b)(9), a person may import into the United States "a motor vehicle that is at least 25 years old" without the need to conform it to the applicable FMVSS, i.e., those in effect at the time of its manufacture. Thus, any Land Rover manufactured between 1967 and 1975 is "at least 25 years old," and eligible for importation under this exclusion.

The question is whether the addition of a new or newer used body on the existing 1967-75 chassis affects the exclusion afforded by Section 30112(b)(9). Under a long-standing line of interpretations of this agency, the substitution of a new body on a used chassis alone does not result in the creation of a "new" motor vehicle subject to the FMVSS, assuming that the vehicle continues to be titled and registered with its original model year. Thus, under the scheme you outline, the 1967-75 Land Rover with a different body and unmodified chassis could be imported without the need to conform it to the FMVSS.

We contrast this with the situation where refurbishment of a 1967-75 chassis occurs before importation. The substitution of new chassis parts for the original ones may reach a point where, in combination with the newer vehicle body, the overall vehicle itself could be regarded as newly manufactured, rather than one manufactured in 1967-75. In this event, the 25-year exclusion would no longer allow the vehicle to be imported free of the obligation to meet U.S. safety requirements. In a similar situation, we advised John Harland on September 29, 1999, that his extensive rebuilding of 1974 Land Rovers using both new parts and parts from other used Land Rovers would result in the creation of "new" motor vehicles subject to contemporary FMVSS and which could not be imported as vehicles "at least 25 years old."

You have also asked "may the existing engine and transmission be excluded from shipment to have it rebuilt in the U.K. and shipped at a later date?" A vehicle without an engine and transmission is considered to be an assemblage of parts. Some FMVSS apply to individual parts as well as to motor vehicles. Those individual components that are subject to the FMVSS must conform in order to be imported. For multipurpose passenger vehicles such as the Land Rover, these components are brake hoses, lighting equipment, brake hoses, tires, rims, glazing, and seat belt assemblies. There are no FMVSS that apply to engines and transmissions, and these items of equipment could be rebuilt and imported at a later date. Please note, however, that the completed vehicle would be required to comply with state and local requirements for registration.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591
d.2/22/01

ID: nht68-2.27

DATE: 07/26/68

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. M. O'Mahoney; NHTSA

TO: The City of New York Police Department

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 21 asking how an owner can be penalized for violating vehicle equipment standards, and, in addition, whether or not taxicab owners may remove head restraints, which will be required on vehicles manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, so as to install a sliding glass panel separating a taxicab driver from his customer required by New York police regulation.

As to the first question, in general, the standards have very little application to vehicle owners at this time. In the future, through State-Federal cooperation with reference to vehicles in used standards, it is possible that some sanctions as to owners will be applied. At the present time the principal effect on owners has to do with imported cars. An owner may not import a vehicle into the United States which does not conform to the Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect at the time of its manufacture, whether it is new or used.

Your second question is answered in part by my answer to your first question. At this time there is no prohibition against an owner of a vehicle removing an item of safety equipment which the manufacturer must install to conform with the standards. We are aware that some owners, particularly taxicab owners, may remove such required items as seat belts. We view this as unfortunate since it removes a built-in protection for driver and passenger.

The removal of head restraints to accommodate a different kind of safety device presents a more difficult question. If the absence of any sanction prohibiting the removal of the head restraint the question, from a safety point of view, is whether or not the danger from whiplush injuries in rearend collisions, which are, as you know, frequent occurrences in city traffic; is a greater danger than the threat of assault from the taxicab passengers. Certainly the ideal would be to provide both kinds of protection for the driver, and it would seem that it would be possible for manufacturers to provide a design that would afford both sorts of protection.

We have had informal conversations from the City of New York's Washington office concerning what we understood(Illegible Word) proposed city ordinance governing the glass panel separating drivers and passengers in taxicabs. Your letter mentions a "police regulation." Could you supply us with more complete information as to what the City of New York's requirements are and whether they are by city ordinance, State laws, or police regulation? Appropriate citations or copies of applicable laws or regulations would be appreciated.

POLICE DEPARTMENT -- CITY OF NEW YORK

June 21, 1968 Robert M O'Mahoney Counsel Transportation Department.

I have your letter of June 11th with the booklet on Federal motor vehicle safety standards, for which I thank you very much.

I inquire now, relative to these standards:

1. Illustrate how an owner can be penalized for vidating the vehicle equipment standards. The literature on the market concerning violations by the dealer and the manufacturer is clear but what set of circumstances would bring an automobile owner into a breach of the vehicle equipment standards.

2. In New York City taxicabs require (by police regulation) a sliding panel isolating the taxi driver from his customer. When future taxicabs come from the assembly line, with the headrest included, there will be interference with the glass panel. Question: are the taxicab owners permitted to remove the headrest in this type of a case or do your standards forbid removal thereof?

Thank you once again Bob for your reply to my first communication and I hope you can furnish us the information desired in this letter.

ID: aiam4647

Mr. Dan Trexler Specifications Engineer Thomas Built Buses, Inc. P.O Box 2450 High Point, NC 27261 Dear Mr. Trexler: This is in reply to your letter of May 8, l989, to the former Chief Counsel of this agency, Erika Jones. You have received requests 'to install a master electrical disconnect switch on many buses.' When the switch is turned to the 'off' position 'it renders inoperative the warning signals (to the driver) required by FMVSS l05, 121 and 217. It also inactivates the hazard warning flasher required by FMVSS 108.' You ask whether installation of the switch would constitute a noncompliance, or a 'safety related hazard.' if it is accessible to the seated driver, or if remotely located in the battery or engine compartment, without ready access to the driver. Although you have not explained the purpose of such a device, we understand that a battery disconnect switch of this nature is deemed desirable by many bus owners to prevent drains on the battery when the bus is at rest. When the switch is activated, the bus cannot be started and driven because electric power is not available. Under this circumstance we do not believe that the switch either creates a noncompliance with any of the standards listed, nor constitutes a safety related defect, regardless of its location. When the bus is in operation the warning systems of the standards are not affected. The possibility of inadvertent activation when the bus is in use does not constitute a defect in performance, construction, components, or materials such as to create a safety related defect. To forestall any possibility of inadvertent activation, however, you may find it preferable to locate the switch away from the driver. We understand that a purpose of this switch is to reduce the likelihood of fire after accidents in which there has been fuel spillage. In this circumstance, it is likely that the bus would be positioned either in the roadway or adjacent to it. Safety would be enhanced if the hazard warning signal power source were separate from the batteries inactivated by the disconnect switch, so that these warning lamps could continue to operate. Sincerely, Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel /;

ID: nht87-3.11

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/07/87

FROM: RICHARD J. STROHM

TO: CHEVROLET DIVISION

TITLE: 1987 CHEVROLET CAPRICE 1G1BL51HOHX163146 9000 MILES

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/31/89 FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD -- NHTSA TO RICHARD J. STROHM. REDBOOK A33; FMVSS 207; VSA 108 [A] [2] [4] LETTER DATED 11/09/87 FROM RICHARD J. STROHM TO EDWARD JETTNER -- NHTSA; FMVSS 207; OCC 1362

TEXT: Gentlemen:

It appears that the front bench seat in my 1987 Caprice has been mounted closer to the front of the passenger compartment than the Impales I have driven over the past 10 years. Less leg room was evident when I first drove the new car and I have been una ble to move the seat back for enough to provide the past comfort I enjoyed.

By my measurement the seat is 3/4 of an inch closer to the dash and floorboard, and the same distance farther from the back seat than in my 1983 Impale. I use this car for business travel and would like to have the seat position adjusted back, to where I feel it was for many years. The delivering dealer (Horizon Chevrolet) is unable to do anything for me and I ask that you give them direction and authorization to make the seat adjustment under warranty.

I can bring the car by for examination if it would help.

Very truly yours,

ID: 86-5.40

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/30/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Toshio Maeda

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer Nissan Research & Development, Inc. P.O. Box 8650 Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Dear Mr. Maeda:

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1986, concerning the safety belt contact force provision of the comfort and convenience requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained that Nissan is concerned about the requirements of S10.6 contained in the final rule published on March 21, 1986. You noted that a sentence contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was not included in the final rule and asked whether this sentence had been inadvertently omitted.

In addition, you asked the agency to clarify the effect of the omitted sentence on belt systems which have less than 12 inches of webbing stored in the retractor once the belt is placed around the test dummy. You explained that Nissan considers the purpose of the requirement in the omitted sentence to be elimination of belt drag before measuring the belt contact force. You explained that requiring a manufacturer to pull 12 inches of webbing from the retractor before the belt connect test would require redesign of Nissan's belt systems, even though those systems meet the safety belt adjustment requirements of the standard. You asked the agency to provide that a manufacturer can pull the maximum allowable length of the belt stored on the retractor, rather than 12 inches, prior to conducting the belt contact force test.

As explained in the enclosed Federal Register notice, the sentence contained in the notice of proposed rulemaking was inadvertently omitted from the final rule. NHTSA agrees that the purpose of the belt webbing pull requirement can be adequately net by pulling our the maximum allowable amount of the belt, when the belt has less than 12 inches of available additional webbing. Pulling the belt in this way will ensure that the belt retractor is working and webbing drag is reduced. Thus, the agency has modified the requirement to provide that prior to measuring the belt contact force the agency will pull out 12 inches of webbing or the maximum amount of webbing available when the maximum amount is less than 12 inches.

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

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

JULY 30, 1986 Ref: W-187-H

Ms. Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th St., S.W. Room 5219 Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

Re: 49 CFR Part 571.208 (Docket No. 74-14; Notice 43) REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND, IF NECESSARY, PETITION FOR RULEMAKING

On behalf of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., of Tokyo, Japan, Nissan Research & Development, Inc, herewith requests the agency's interpretation of language in the above-reference provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, "Occupant Crash Protection," Further, if NHTSA cannot agree that Nissan's understanding is an acceptable interpretation of the requirement, we subsequently request your treatment of this letter as a petition for rulemaking.

1) Section 10.7 of the final rule for Docket No. 74-14, Notice 43, gives the following directions for testing seat belt contact force:

"Pull the belt webbing three inches from the test dummy's chest and release until the webbing is within 1 inch of the test dummy's chest and measure the belt contact force."

This language differs from the language in S.10.6 in Notice 42, which at first gives directions to; "pull 12 inches of belt webbing from the retractor and then release it, allowing the belt webbing to return to the dummy's chest."

(Subsequent language is consistent in both Notice 42 and 43 versions.)

Nissan's question, therefore, is: was the omission of the Notice 42 language in Notice 43 intentional or not?

2) If the omission of that language from Notice 43 was unintentional, and the language is adopted as intended in Notice 42, Nissan's interpretation is that would be acceptable to pull out the maximum allowable length of belt webbing, in the event that 12 inches of belt webbing cannot be pulled out, before measuring belt contact force. Does NHTSA agree with and accept this interpretation?

Explanation of Nissan's Interpretation

According to the preamble of Docket 74-14, Notice 37, the purpose of the S10.6 provision is to eliminate the belt drag on the belt guide components before measuring the belt contact force, and not to measure the ability to pull 12 inches of webbing from the retractor, Nissan is not aware of any reasons to support additional requirements concerning belt adjustment beyond the requirements of MVSS 208 S7.1.

In Nissan's case, the explicit requirement that 12 inches of webbing must be pulled from the retractor would necessitate a complete redesign of some belt systems for our vehicles. We therefore believe that pulling the maximum allowable length of webbing should be allowable for cases where 12 inches cannot be pulled, We believe that such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the performance requirements of the standard.

As an aside, Nissan would also like to point out that for diagonal or 3-point automatic restraint systems which lack a belt guide, there is no need to pull out 12 inches of belt webbing length to eliminate belt guide drag.

3) As stated earlier, if the agency cannot agree that the rule's final language may be interpreted to allow the maximum allowable length of belt webbing to be pulled from the retractor, Nissan requests treatment of this request for interpretation as a Petition for Rulemaking to incorporate such language into S.10.7 of FMVSS 208.

In view of the extreme importance and urgency of NHTSA's response, we ask your utmost cooperation in treating this request expeditiously. Mr. Tomoyo Hayashi of my Washington, D.C. staff is available at (202) 466-5284 if you have further questions. Moreover, I would appreciate your mailing a copy of your response to Mr. Hayashi in Washington, to ensure our quick receipt of NHTSA's answer. His address is as follows: Nissan Research & Development, Inc. 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Suite 707 Washington, D.C. 20006

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

NISSAN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC.

Toshio Maeda Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

TM:TH:mab

ID: aiam3342

Dear Mr. Halper: This responds to your letter of May 28, 1980, on behalf of Californi Strolee, Inc. (Strolee), to Stephen Oesch of my office and to the questions you asked during your meeting of August 7 with members of the agency's staff. Both your letter and your meeting concerned Standard No. 213, *Child Restraint Systems*. You asked whether Strolee's prototype child restraint, described in your letter and demonstrated at the meeting, must be tested in accordance with section 6.1.2.1.2 of the standard and, if so, whether the agency will attach the harness system of the child restraint during that testing. The answers are that the child restraint must be tested in accordance with section 6.1.2.1.2 and the agency will attach the harness during that testing.; Your May 29, 1980, letter, describing Strolee's future product plans requested confidentiality for Strolee's request for interpretation and the agency's response. At your August 7, 1980, meeting, you informed Mr. Oesch that Strolee had decided to withdraw its request for confidentiality.; The child restraint described in your letter and demonstrated to th agency has a movable shield. The shield is attached to each side of the restraint by a pivot mechanism, which has a spring that lifts the shield. Because the movable shield is spring-loaded, it must be mechanically held down or it will automatically raise the shield above the child's head. Attached to the lower part of the child restraint is a crotch strap with a buckle on one end. The crotch strap is intended to be manually passed through a loop mounted on the bottom of the movable shield and attached to the other portions of the five point harness system within the restraint.; The other portions of the harness system consist of two straps, eac strap serves as an upper and lower torso restraint. Each strap has a movable metal latchplate which is inserted into the buckle attached to the crotch strap.; Once the crotch strap is passed through the loop mounted on the shiel and attached to the harness system, the shield is held in place in front of the child. The five point harness system provides the primary restraint of the child, but the movable shield, which will be designed to comply with the shape and radius of curvature requirements of section 5.2.2.1(c) of the standard, also provides restraint in a crash.; Your first question was whether the child restraint must be tested i accordance with test configuration II specified in Section 6.1.2.1.2 of the standard. More specifically, the issue is whether the Strolee shield is the sort of restraining surface described in section 5.2.2.2. As explained below, the answer is yes. The Strolee child restraint will be tested in accordance with test configuration II. When tested in that configuration, it will not have its top tether attached.; Section 5.2.2.2 of the standard requires that: >>>Each forward facing child restraint system shall have no fixed o movable surface directly forward of the dummy and intersected by a horizontal line parallel to the SORL and passing through any portion of the dummy, except for surfaces which restrain the dummy when the system is tested in accordance with S6.1.2.1.2 so that the child restraint system shall conform to the requirements of S5.1.2 and S5.1.3.1.<<<; When the Strolee child restraint is used in accordance with th manufacturer's instructions, the crotch strap is passed through the loop on the movable shield and attached to the harness system. Once that action is taken, the movable shield is positioned in front of the test dummy. Although the five point harness system provides the primary restraint in the Strolee system, the shield also provides restraint. Therefore, the child restraint must be tested in accordance with section 6.1.2.1.2.; Your second question, raised during your meeting, was whether th agency would attach the crotch strap of the Strolee child restraint if the restraint must be tested in accordance with section 6.1.2.1.2. The answer is yes.; Section 6.1.2.3.1.(c) of the standard provides that in the 20 mph tes of forward facing child restraints with fixed or movable surfaces that restrain the child, the restraint system's belts are not to be attached 'unless they are an integral part of the fixed or movable surface.'; The crotch strap used in the Strolee child restraint is not an integra part of the movable shield. The movable shield is a complete unit by itself. The crotch strap is a separate device that must be manually passed through a loop mounted on the shield every time the unit is used.; The rationale for the integral belt requirement involves the principa misuse of child restraints, which is the failure to attach buckles. This failure is often associated with child restraints having movable surfaces that can be positioned in front of the child. Parents mistakenly assume that such surfaces by themselves would provide sufficient protection and thus do not buckle the harness system in the restraint. To reduce that misuse, the agency established the requirement that belts may be attached during the testing of restraints equipped with movable shields only if they are integral parts of the shield. Attachment of belts that are integral parts is permitted since they remain attached to the restraining shield whether or not the restraint is in use. In addition, the need to buckle those belts is more readily apparent than in the case of belts that are not integral parts of the shield. Thus, the integral belts are not subject to the type of misuse described above.; This rationale applies to belts on a child restraint having a movabl restraining shield that is not spring-loaded. It does not, however, apply to a nonintegral belt on a restraint having a spring-loaded movable shield, if that shield can be held in place only by attaching the nonintegral belt so as to fully and properly restrain the child. The Strolee spring-loaded movable shield will not stay in place in front of the child unless the crotch strap is attached. If the crotch strap is not fastened to the remaining portions of the Strolee child restraint, the movable shield automatically rises above the child's head to signal that the buckle is unfastened and the child is unrestrained. Requiring the crotch strap to be an integral part of the movable restraining shield is unnecessary if the movable shield can only be positioned in front of the child when the child is properly restrained.; The agency originally had several concerns about whether the movabl shield in the Strolee child restraint could be positioned in front of the child without fully and properly restraining the child. One concern was whether the crotch strap and buckle could be passed through the loop mounted on the shield without attaching it to the remaining portion of the harness and the weight of the buckle would hold the shield in place in front of the child. At the meeting, you explained that the large buckle used on the prototype was for demonstration purposes only. Strolee demonstrated a smaller, lighter push-button buckle which would be used on production models and which could not hold down the movable shield by its own weight.; Another concern was whether the crotch strap and buckle could be passe through the loop on the movable shield and attached to only one of the two remaining straps of the harness system. Thus, the shield could be in front of the child, but the child would not be fully and properly restrained because a portion of the five-point harness system would not be connected. An examination of current restraint systems should show that one child restraint is already using a similar type of five-point harness as used in the Strolee system. The agency has not received any reports that parents are connecting only one half of that harness system. In addition, the need to connect both straps is readily apparent, since the buckle on the crotch strap has a separate receptacle for the latchplate on each belt.; The agency is still concerned about the durability of a spring-loade system such as Strolee's. To properly perform its function, the spring must have sufficient force to slowly but repeatedly, raise the movable shield. Further, child restraints are traditionally handed down from child to child and family to family. We, therefore, urge Strolee to design the spring so that it will have sufficient durability to withstand at least several years of repeated use.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel