ID: nht91-1.48

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Gary P. Toth -- Attorney, Legal Staff, General Motors Corporation,

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Robert A. Rogers; Barry A. Felrice; Robert Hellmuth; Steven R. Kratzke

TITLE: Re FMVSS 209 Compliance of GM Dual-Spring Retractor Designs

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-9-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Gary P. Toth (A37; Std. 209)

TEXT:

On September 11, 1990, representatives of General Motors Corporation (GM) met with NHTSA personnel to review several seat belt retractor designs planned for future GM products. These retractor designs included comfort features involving dual-spring rates and intentional set slack capability. By letter dated November 2, 1990 (USG 2829), we sent your office copies of the presentation materials, with a request for confidential treatment.

The purpose of this letter is to seek the agency's concurrence that the two dual-spring retractor designs we reviewed with the agency meet the minimum retraction force requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. In connection with this request for interpretation, we also seek the agency's reevaluation of a February, 1984 interpretation, which implies that use of dual-spring retractors planned by GM might be precluded by FMVSS 209. But for that interpretation, GM would have no difficulty in concluding that these designs meet the minimum retraction force requirements of S 4.3(j)(5) and (6) of FMVSS 209, when tested in accordance with S 5.2(j).

Attachments 1 and 2 of this letter contain proprietary information describing in more detail the operation of the systems we reviewed with the agency on September 11. This information is not customarily made public by GM, and contains trade secrets and commercial information within the meaning of Section 1905 of Title 18 of the United States Code. Therefore, it is our position that these attachments are entitled to confidential treatment pursuant to Section 552(b)(4) of Title 5 of the United States Code (Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act) and Section 112(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended and implemented in Part 512 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

Accordingly, pursuant to 49 CFR S 512.4, GM requests that Attachments 1 and 2, which have been stamped "G.M. Confidential", be withheld from public disclosure as confidential business information for an indefinite period (except for any information which will ultimately be publicly disclosed by the availability of these designs in production vehicles). Any disclosure of this information before that time is likely to result in substantial competitive harm to GM for the same reasons set forth in USG 2829 and in the certification provided with that letter.

INTRODUCTION

GM has been a strong advocate of safety belt usage and is continuing to evaluate alternative means for improving the comfort and convenience of safety belt systems. During the September 11 meeting, we reviewed two dual-spring retractor systems, both of which are intended to reduce shoulder belt pressure on all sized occupants, which we know to be a significant factor in belt comfort.

The operation of both of these retractor designs is such that when the safety belt is being worn by an occupant, a lower retractor spring rate is, or can be, engaged to minimize the shoulder belt pressure on the occupant. When the belt is removed, a higher force spring rate is engaged to effectively stow the belt webbing. Detailed descriptions of the operation of the two designs are provided in confidential Attachments 1 and 2.

FEBRUARY, 1984 NHTSA INTERPRETATION

By letter dated February 29, 1984, NHTSA issued an interpretation to the United States Testing Company, Inc., of Hoboken, New Jersey. That company sought the agency's evaluation of a retractor design utilizing a tension reducer device (comfort type mechanism), described as a "Type 2 Vehicle Sensitive Emergency Locking Retractor". The tension reducer device was activated by the vehicle door. With the door open, the mechanism operated in a high tension mode. With the door closed, the mechanism operated in a low tension mode.

The company suggested that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort as specified in FMVSS 209. The company also stated its opinion that: (1) the high tension mode should only be tested for minimum retraction force; and (2) the low tension mode be tested for maximum retraction force.

The agency agreed with the company's suggestion that both tension modes should be tested for retraction force effort, but disagreed with the suggestion that only the high tension mode should be tested for minimum retraction force, and that only the low tension mode should be tested for maximum retraction force. In this regard, the agency stated:

... (B)ecause Standard No. 209 does not distinguish between tension modes, we interpret the standard to require that all of its requirements must be met in both tension modes. For example, under section S4.3(j)(6), both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the 0.2 to 1.5 pound range.

The agency's interpretation, however, did not consider, or attempt to reconcile its conclusion with, S5.2(j) of FMVSS 209, which identifies the test procedure for evaluating the retractive forces specified in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). Stated differently, the substantive requirements in FMVSS 209 S4.3(j) (5) and (6) are tied directly to the test procedure in S5.2(j), and there is no analysis of how the United States Testing Company device would perform when tested in accordance with S5.2(j). The 1984 interpretation simply states that both tension modes must exert a retractive force within the specified range without reference to the procedure specified for assessing compliance to these requirements.

Factually, the United States Testing Company device is clearly distinguishable from either of the GM retractor designs. It was apparently designed to activate the lower rate spring simply depending upon whether the vehicle door was open or closed. This is not the case with either of the GM systems reviewed with the agency. The first retractor system requires intentional occupant action -- extracting three to five inches of webbing -- to activate the lover rate spring. The lower rate spring in the second system is activated only when lap belt webbing has been extracted a certain length from its stowed position.

The two GM retractor designs can be tested in accordance with the procedure in S5.2(j) without modifying the hardware or the test procedure. When tested in accordance with S5.2(j), both designs meet the minimum retractor force requirements in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). If it were necessary, however, to modify the retractor hardware or test procedure in some way so that the lower rate springs (which would not otherwise be operational) were tested separately, as is suggested by the agency's February, 1984 interpretation, it is unlikely that these springs could meet the minimum retraction force requirements in S4.3(j)(5) and (6). However, such an interpretation would impose a new substantive requirement upon dual-spring retractors divorced from the test procedure in S5.2(j).

CLOSING

In closing, GM requests that NHTSA provide us a new interpretation indicating that the dual-spring retractor designs which we reviewed with the agency on September 11, and which are further described in Attachments 1 and 2, would comply with the minimum retractor force requirements of S4.3(j)(5) and (6) if tested in accordance with S5.2(j) of FMVSS 209 without separately testing the lower rate springs. In addition, to minimize future concerns relative to the meaning or effect of the February, 1984 interpretation, we ask that NHTSA reevaluate that interpretation, and consider limiting its effect to the facts presented in the United States Testing Company letter.

We trust that the information contained in this letter and presented on September 11 will provide a sufficient basis for the agency to concur with GM's determination regarding the compliance of these dual-spring retractor designs with FMVSS 209. However, please contact me if I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter.

ID: 15319.jeg

Mr. Ottar Cato Olsen
Project Engineer
Safety & Homologation
PIVCO AS
Stanseveien 4
N-0975 Oslo
NORWAY

Dear Mr. Olsen:

This responds to your letter, addressed to Paul Atelsek of my staff, asking several questions about our safety standards. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You first ask about a proposed design for a passenger air bag (PAB) on-off switch for "two seat cars." You state:

The proposed solution for deactivating the PAB is as follows:

• Turn the ignition switch to start position . . .;
• The start position on the ignition key will activate a PAB switch;
• The PAB switch, located on the top of the steering column cover, can now be pushed to activate/deactivate the PAB;
• If the PAB is deactivated, a yellow light in the center console (visible for both people in the front) will be turned on.

It is only possible to change the PAB status when the ignition key is in the start position.

You asked whether this system would meet NHTSA's requirements, and whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB."

By way of background information, NHTSA has established specific requirements for passenger air bag manual cut-off devices. These requirements are set forth in S4.5.4 of Standard No. 208. I have enclosed a copy of that section revised as of October 1, 1996, and a final rule published on January 6, 1997 (Docket 74-14, Notice 109) which amended that section.

As you will see, your proposed design would not meet the requirements of S4.5.4. For example, it would not meet the requirement specified in S4.5.4.2 that a passenger air bag manual cut-off device must be separate from the ignition switch for the vehicle, "so that the driver must take some action with the ignition key other than inserting it or turning it in the ignition switch to deactivate the passenger air bag." Also, it would not meet the requirement in S4.5.4.3 that the telltale light be located on the dashboard. As to your question concerning whether this agency has "any lamp display that PIVCO can use for the deactivated PAB," S4.5.4 includes several requirements for the display. Among other things, S4.5.4.3 specifies that the telltale must be yellow, and must have the identifying words "AIR BAG OFF" on the telltale or within 25 millimeters of the telltale.

You next ask when the "new FMVSS 201" will influence PIVCO. You state that PIVCO is a small car manufacturer, with only one vehicle line, producing 5,000 cars a year.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 201; Occupant Protection in Interior Impact was amended by a final rule published on August 18, 1995 (62 FR 16718). This final rule, which established new requirements for head protection, was amended by a notice published on April 8, 1997 (62 FR 16718).

The standard provides manufacturers with four phase-in options for meeting its requirements.

These phase-in options are not dependent on the number of vehicles produced by a manufacturer. Options one and two, found in S6.1.1. and S6.1.2 of the Standard, provide that certain percentages of production manufactured on or after September 1, 1998 must meet the new requirements. The third option, found in S6.1.3 of the Standard, states that manufacturers need not produce any complying vehicles before September 1, 1999 but that all vehicles produced on or after that date must comply. This option, which provides longer lead time than the first two options, was intended to accommodate manufacturers with limited product lines.

The fourth option is applicable only to final stage manufacturers. The term "final stage manufacturer" is defined at 49 CFR 568.3 as "a person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." An "incomplete vehicle" is defined in that section as "an assemblage consisting, at a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system . . . that requires further manufacturing operations . . . to become a completed vehicle." If PIVCO is a "final stage manufacturer," it need not produce any vehicles that comply before September 1, 2002. However, all vehicles manufactured on or after that date must comply.

There is no exclusion from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) based upon the volume produced by the manufacturer. All motor vehicles must comply with all FMVSS, unless the agency has exempted them from one or more of the standards. NHTSA is authorized by 49 U.S.C. 30113 to exempt, on a temporary basis, a manufacturer whose total yearly production does not exceed 10,000 motor vehicles, from any FMVSS that would cause the manufacturer substantial economic hardship were it required to meet it immediately. The application procedures for such an exemption are contained in 49 CFR 555.5 and 555.6(a). The applicant must not only show hardship, but also that it has tried in good faith to meet the standard from which it requests relief.

Finally, you ask about contact persons within NHTSA. You ask whether it is OK for all communications between PIVCO and NHTSA to go through Mr. Atelsek, and whether there is any other way of communicating with NHTSA, e.g., by fax or e-mail.

In communicating with NHTSA, PIVCO should contact the specific office or person for which it has relevant questions or other business, to the extent it has the knowledge to do so. Requests for legal interpretation should be sent to Chief Counsel, Room 5219, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC 20590 (FAX 202-366-3820). Questions regarding Standard 208 should be directed to Mr. Edward Glancy (eglancy@nhtsa.dot.gov). Inquiries about Standard 201 should be directed to Mr. Otto Matheke (omatheke@nhtsa.dot.gov).

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:208
d.11/5/97

ID: 1983-1.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/15/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America) Inc. -- H. Nakaya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. H. Nakaya Mazda (North America), Inc. 23777 Greenfield Road, Suite 462 Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Nakaya:

This responds to your letter asking about the definition of occupant compartment air spaces for purposes of determining the application of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. You asked whether the cargo areas of two cars must comply with the standard if these areas always or sometimes open into the occupant compartment.

The term "occupant compartment air space" is defined in the standard as "the space within the occupant compartment that normally contains refreshable air." In previous interpretations regarding the applicability of the standard to a particular area of a vehicle, the question has turned upon whether people can and do ride in the area in question. In letters regarding vans, the agency has taken the position that the area was not typically occupied by passengers. However, the agency came to a different conclusion regarding the space behind the rear seat in station wagons. Since passengers can and do ride in that area, the agency concluded that it was part of the occupant compartment. For this interpretation, see the last page of the enclosed letter.

The Case I car in your letter presents a situation seemingly similar to that of station wagons. The Case I appears to be a liftback cart with a cargo carrying area behind the rear seat. If passengers can ride in the area behind the rear seat, then that would be part of the occupant compartment and would be subject to the standard. As to the Case II car, which appears to be a sedan with internal access to the trunk by means of the folding backs of the rear seats, the agency does not regard the trunk area as part of the occupant compartment. It does not appear from your diagram that people would ride in that area.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ID: nht91-6.25

DATE: October 16, 1991

FROM: Floyd J. Barkman -- Vice President Sales & Marketing, Collins Bus Corporation

TO: Susan Schruth -- Office of Chief Counsel, U.M.T.A.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-6-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Floyd J. Barkman (A38; Std. 208)

TEXT:

We have been referred to your office to help us clarify recent laws involving commercial buses. We are manufacturer of both small and medium buses for both private customers and U.M.T.A. funded agencies. The following is a list of questions we would like your office to clarify:

1. Based on a final ruling that went into effect September 1, 1991, all MPV and/or buses with a gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 pounds are required to have Type 1 or Type 2 occupant restraints at all seated positions. Also, all outboard occupants or passengers are required to have three point shoulder harness. We also understand school buses are exempt from the outboard shoulder harness. Are these statements correct and are there any exceptions to these rulings?

2. We build under 10,000 GVW buses for the day care industry that use school bus safety seats and lap belts at all locations. The exterior of the bus is commercial. Would these buses require the outboard shoulder harness?

We would appreciate your earliest reply as we have new buses in production that will be effected by this law.

ID: aiam4231

Dear Mr. Louis: Thank you for your letter of October 17, 1986, to Dr. Richar Strombotne of this agency concerning Standard No. 208, *Occupant Crash Protection*. Your letter was referred to this office for reply. You have asked a number of questions concerning how the requirements of the standard apply to the automatic restraint system Renault intends to use in one of its vehicles. The answers to your questions are discussed below.; You explained that Renault plans to use, at both front outboard seatin positions, an automatic restraint system consisting of a motorized, detachable, two-point automatic belt and knee bolster. You stated that the automatic restraint system meets all the injury criteria of the standard when tested in the 30 mile per hour frontal barrier test of S5.1 of the standard. You also explained that Renault has decided to install voluntarily a manual lap belt with your automatic restraint system. You further stated that the addition of the manual lap belt does not affect the performance of the automatic restraint system, since your testing shows that the automatic restraint system can meet the injury criteria in a 30 mile per hour frontal barrier crash test both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.; As I understand your first question, you are, in essence, asking th agency to confirm that under S4.5.3 of the standard an automatic belt system with a single diagonal torso belt can be used in meeting the front crash protection requirements of S4.1.2.1(a) and can also be substituted for a Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt to meet the requirements of S4.1.2.1(c)(2). As provided in S4.5.3 of the standard, an automatic safety belt system can be 'used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option.' Thus, you are correct that an automatic safety belt can be substituted for the Type 1 or Type 2 safety belt otherwise required by S4.1.2.1(c)(2) of the standard. This means that a Renault vehicle equipped with an automatic safety belt would not be subjected to the lateral crash test of S5.2 or the dynamic rollover test of S5.3.; Your second and final question concerned how our safety standards, i particular Standard No. 210, *Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages*, would apply to a manual lap belt voluntarily installed by manufacturers with an automatic safety belt system. In a March 1, 1979 letter to Ford Motor Company, NHTSA stated that 'active lap belts and their associated anchorages are not required to comply with Federal safety standards if installed voluntarily by a manufacturer in addition to a single, diagonal passive belt.' In responding to Ford, NHTSA also noted that in past interpretations the agency has stated that 'systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the passive belt in this case) to comply with Federal safety systems.' In Renault's case, the addition of the manual lap belt does not appear to affect the automatic safety belt, since you stated that Renault can meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 both with and without the manual lap belt fastened.; If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Erika Z. Jones, Chief Counsel

ID: nht73-2.45

DATE: 01/18/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of January 8, 1973, asking us to confirm your understanding of paragraph S4.3.1 of Standard 210.

It is our opinion that each of the three drawings attached to your letter correctly indicates the "nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware" for the respective belt anchorage systems.

Yours truly,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

January 3, 1973

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schneider:

This is to ask whether our understanding of MVSS 210 S4.3.1 is correct according to your interpretation.

We understand "the nearest contact point of the belt with the hardware" stipulated in MVSS 210, S4.3.1, exists at the point, as illustrated in the enclosed figures, when the retractor spool is considered to be the hardware.

CASE 1

Seatbelt webbing is directly in contact with the retractor spool when the webbing is extended to fit the 95 percentile male.

In this case, the nearest contact point exists at the point of contact of webbing and spool as shown in Figure 1.

CASE 2

Seatbelt webbing is directly in contact with the retractor spool through the underlying webbing when the webbing is extended to fit the 95 percentile male.

In this case, the nearest contact point exists at the point of contact of the most outside webbing and the next webbing as shown in Figure 2.

CASE 3

Seatbelt webbing is extended through the guide which meets the anchorage strength requirement of S4.2.

In this case, the nearest contact point exists at the point of contact of webbing and guide as shown in Figure 3.

Your prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

Very truly yours,

Satoshi Nishibori Engineering Representative Liaison Office in USA

Enclosure

FIG 1

(Graphics omitted)

FIG 1

FIG 2

(Graphics omitted)

(Graphics omitted)

ID: 05-Turnquist_drn

Mr. Harold V. Turnquist
Transportation Administrator
1780 West 7^th Street
Saint Paul, MN 55116-2347




Dear Mr. Turnquist:

This responds to your letter requesting confirmation that there has been no change since 1998 in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSAs) position regarding use of 15-passenger vans by your districts Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) program. In an April 29, 1998, letter to you, then Acting Chief Counsel John Womack stated that NHTSA does not consider the ECFE program to constitute a "school" as that term is used in our statute. Mr. Womack concluded that new buses leased to you for transporting ECFE Program participants were thus not required to be school buses under Federal law.

Assuming the ECFE program has not changed, we confirm that we still believe that the instruction in developing the participants parenting skills are distinct from the academic instruction associated with a "school", and that we thus do not consider the ECFE program to be a "school" for purposes of our regulations. Accordingly, if a dealer were to sell or lease a new 15-passenger van to the Saint Paul Public Schools Community Education Department for the exclusive use of the ECFE program, that dealer need not sell or lease a new school bus.

Nonetheless, there have been developments in the last few years regarding the use of 15-passenger vans, and we appreciate the opportunity to bring these to your attention.

15-Passenger Van Rollover Risk

The way some 15-passenger vans may be driven may subject occupants to an increased risk of rollover crashes. On June 1, 2004, NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D. , reissued a cautionary warning to 15-passenger van users because of an increased rollover risk under certain conditions. NHTSA research has shown that 15-passenger vans have a rollover risk that increases dramatically as the number of occupants increases from fewer than five to more than ten. In fact, 15-passenger vans with 10 or more occupants had a rollover rate in single-vehicle crashes that is nearly three times the rate of those that were lightly loaded.

Dr. Runge advised 15-passenger van users to be aware of the following safety precautions in order to significantly reduce the rollover risk:

• It is important that 15-passenger vans be operated by trained, experienced drivers.
• All occupants must wear seat belts at all times. Eighty percent of those who died in 15-passenger van rollovers nationwide in the year 2000 were not buckled up. Wearing seat belts dramatically increases the chances of survival during a rollover crash. In fatal, single-vehicle rollovers involving 15-passenger vans over the past decade, 92 percent of belted occupants survived.

I am enclosing copies of the consumer advisory and a flyer, "Reducing the Risk of Rollover Crashes in 15-Passenger Vans".

The Multifunction School Activity Bus

In 2003, NHTSA established a new school bus subcategory, the "multifunction school activity bus" (MFSAB). This vehicle is a bus that meets all Federal motor vehicle safety standards for school buses except those for school bus flashing lights and stop arms. MFSABs are sold for purposes that do not include transporting students to and from home or school bus stops. Federal law permits the sale of new MFSABs to child care facilities as an alternative to school buses with flashing lights and stop arms. A copy of a July 31, 2003, final rule that establishes the vehicle category is enclosed for your information.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosures
ref:VSA
d.3/14/05

ID: nht80-4.24

DATE: 12/04/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 28, 1980, enclosing a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency asking several questions about the relationship of your operation to the joint importation regulations.

As you have explained it the facts appear to be these: Volkswagen of America (VWoA) imports certain items of motor vehicle equipment which are incorporated together with parts of domestic manufacture into automobiles manufactured in the United States. As the components do not enter the "U.S. Customs Territory" en route to the plant, which is in a Foreign Trade Subzone, HS-7 forms are not provided at time of importation, but are furnished to Customs on a weekly basis together with formal Consumption Entries. You have asked

1) Must we file a [HS-7 Form] with each Consumption Entry?

The answer is no. Under the joint Custom-DOT importation regulation, 19 CFR 12.80(b), declarations are required for equipment items "offered for introduction into the Customs Territory of the United States." Such an introduction might be deemed to occur upon entry into interstate commerce of the motor vehicle incorporating the parts shipped from abroad (i.e. when it leaves the Subzone). But since the vehicle itself must be certified as meeting all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards we see no useful purpose to be served by requiring VWoA to submit HS-7 Forms for these parts, no matter what forms are required by other Federal agencies.

2) Do we have to amend previously filed forms?

For the reasons indicated in reply to your first question there is no need for VWoA to continue burdening either itself or this agency with these forms, amended or otherwise.

3) Do we have to enter "pilot vehicles" under a Customs Temporary Importation Bond (T.I.B.) Entry, or can we pay duty on them when they are withdrawn from the Subzone?

This question which you asked EPA has no apparent applicability to our regulations and I surmise that you are asking whether you must file a HS-7 Form with pilot vehicles and at what point is the filing appropriate.

No filing is necessary -- We understand the "pilot vehicle" to be a pre-production prototype manufactured in the New Stanton plant. Although that plant may be outside the Customs Territory of the United States for purposes of Customs regulations, it is within the "United States" under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Therefore when the vehicle leaves the Subzone, it is not "imported" into the United States and no HS-7 Form is required. Driving the pilot vehicle on the public roads outside the Subzone, however, introduces it into interstate commerce and it must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards if VWoA is not to be in violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)).

I hope this answers your questions.

SINCERELY,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

WESTMORELAND ASSEMBLY PLANT

October 28, 1980

Department of Transportation NHTSA

Attention Chief Counsel - NHTSA

Gentlemen:

This will serve to confirm my telephone conversation with Mr. Buckley on October 27, 1980. We briefly discussed certain questions that we have relative to filing Customs entries and associated documents for automobiles and automobile trucks withdrawn from our Foreign Trade Subzone. The same questions have been placed before the EPA. Therefore, we respectively request that the enclosed letter to EPA be accepted and the questions asked be answered in behalf of DOT. This would involve the filing of the DOT form HS-7 and your position on our pilot vehicles.

If you should have any questions pertaining to the above or the enclosed, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 696-6358.

David N. Miller, Jr.

Manager Foreign Trade Zone Operations

ATTACH.

CC: E. BUCKLEY -- NHTSA

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

WESTMORELAND ASSEMBLY PLANT

October 28, 1980

Robert Marconi Attorney for the Investigations/Imports Section Manufacturers Operations Div. (EN-340) Environmental Protection Agency

Dear Sir:

This will serve to confirm our telephone conversation during the week of October 6, 1980. As discussed, our Westmoreland Assembly Plant is a Foreign Trade Subzone (#33A), and we have some unique problems. Possibly some background information would be helpful for you to better answer our questions.

Our Subzone was activated on January 2, 1979. We receive both foreign and domestic automotive components to be assembled together to produce our vehicles. The majority of the foreign components move from the U.S. ports of arrival "in bond" to the plant. Such parts do not enter into the "U. S. Customs territory." After our vehicles are produced, they are withdrawn from the Subzone and at that time, they enter into the "U. S. Customs territory." Each day we submit to Customs a request to withdraw vehicles produced for domestic consumption. This is done on a CF 215, and attached thereto are the specific vehicle VIN numbers. (A separate CF 215 and VIN listing is filed for automobiles and automobile trucks.) Weekly, we prepare formal Consumption Entries (CF 7501) and submit them along with the EPA (3520-1) and DOT (HS-7) forms, which includes VIN listings previously filed with the respective CF 215s. For automobiles we pay duty on the composite foreign material content at the automobile duty rate. We pay duty on the individual foreign components at their various part tariff rates for automobile trucks. Vehicles exported from the Subzone under Transportation and Exportation Bond Entries (CF 7512) do not enter the "U. S. Customs territory," and no duties are paid and would not be reported to Customs on a CF 215 nor to EPA. Hopefully, this has given you some insight on our operations. If more details are required, please feel free to contact me.

Our inquiry covers three (3) situations, and the first two are somewhat related. The questions under discussion are as follows:

1) Must we file an EPA form 3520-1 with each Consumption Entry? Normally, vehicles produced outside of the United States and subsequently imported, require the filing of the EPA form. However, even though our vehicles have not entered the legal "U. S. Customs territory" until they are withdrawn from our Subzone for domestic consumption, they are still considered as being manufactured within the United States. U. S. Customs themselves have no problem with us not submitting these documents since they are only administratively handling your regulatory requirements for Consumption Entries covering motor vehicles.

2) Do we have to amend previously filed forms?

For Model Year 1980 (i.e. August. 1979 thru August, 1980), we produced 246,111 vehicles. Our initial analysis indicates that we reported only 245,995 to Customs, EPA and DOT. Therefore, it appears that 116 vehicles (VINs) which are a combination of automobiles and automobile trucks, have not been declared. A portion of these vehicles may have been properly exported plus entered under Customs Temporary Importation Bond (T.I.B.) Entries, and therefore, not reflected on CF 215, EPA and DOT documentation. To qualify what automobile and/or automobile truck was not reported on what date and applicable EPA and DOT form would be very time consuming and costly. Therefore, we make a proposal to submit for Model Year 1980 a complete VIN listing and identify those exported or entered under T.I.B. versus amending each EPA/DOT form. Also, please accept this as an alternate proposal for future Model Years instead of filing EPA/DOT forms on a weekly basis with our Consumption Entries.

3) Do we have to enter "pilot vehicles" under a Customs Temporary Importation Bond (T.I.B.) Entry or can we pay duty on them when they are withdrawn from the Subzone?

As with all automotive manufacturers, we produce a limited quantity of preproduction "pilot vehicles." We had seventy (70) for Model Year 1980 and forty-seven (47) for Model Year 1981. They are normally used for testing, evaluation, advertising, etc. It has been our normal practice to enter these vehicles under T.I.B. Entries. However, we would prefer to pay duty on them when they are withdrawn from the Subzone. Again, U. S. Customs has no problem with us paying duty on these vehicles versus entering them under T.I.B. Entries.

Your prompt consideration to our questions and proposals would be greatly appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (412) 696-6358.

David N. Miller, Jr. Manager Foreign Trade Zone Operations

CC: W. E. BOOTH, PORT DIRECTOR PITTSBURGH CUSTOMS; CHIEF COUNSEL -- NHTSA

ID: 1984-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/06/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Toyota Motor Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. J. Kawano General Manager, U.S. Office Toyota Motor Corporation One Harmon Plaza Secaucus, New Jersey 07094

Dear Mr. Kawano:

This letter replies to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 202, Head Restraints. Your first question concerns the measurement of the lateral width of a head restraint with a "Volvo-type configuration." The drawing attached to your letter appears to depict an adjustable head restraint with a rectangular shape and a hollow center. Paragraph S4(b) of Standard No. 202 requires measurements, according to S4(b)(1) and (2), to be made when the head restraint is "adjusted to its fully extended design position." The lateral width of the head restraint of a individual or bucket seat may be measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point. These are the only two locations at which this measurement may be made. The lateral width may not be measured at part B on your drawing, because B is not the correct location at which to make this measurement. A copy of this drawing is enclosed for your convenience.

Your letter and drawing indicate a concern that, if the lateral width is measured 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint, the hollow space between the two sides of the rectangular head restraint may not be included in measuring the total width. Using the information you have supplied, we believe that the lateral width of this type of head restraint, measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, would include the hollow space, if the hollow space occurs at either location. The lateral width would also include, of course, the widths of both sides of this restraint, marked A1 and A2 in your drawing. This lateral width may or may not equal the width, B, located at the top of the restraint in your drawing.

Your second question regarding the correct demonstration procedure to test compliance with Standard No. 202 is answered by the language of paragraph S5.2 of the standard. This paragraph states that, if the head restraint conforms to S4(b), compliance is demonstrated in accordance with S5.2 with the head restraint in its fully extended design position. The dynamic testing procedure would not be required, unless your head restraint conforms to paragraph S4(a). The manufacturer has the option of designing a head restraint which meets the performance requirements of either paragraph S4(a) or paragraph S4(b).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 26, 1984

Mr. Frank A. Berndt Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOA-30 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

SUBJECT: Toyota' s Request for Interpretation Regarding Std. 202, "Head Restraints," S4(2) (i) and (ii)

In reference to the above subject matter, Toyota requests clarification of the specified head restraint width.

In FMVSS 202, S4(b), the lateral width of the head restraint is required as follows:

"When measured either 2.5 inches below the top of the head restraint or 25 inches above the seating reference point, the lateral width of the head restraint shall not be less than (i) 10 inches for use with bench-type seats; and (ii) 6.75 inches for use with individual seats."

Our question is as follows: If the head restraint has a Volvo-type configuration (see Attachment), which part is used to measure the lateral width? A or B? We believe that B should represent the lateral width of this head restraint. Therefore, if the lateral width B is more than 6.75 inches (individual seat), we believe that the dynamic test (FMVSS 202, S4(a)) is not required.

Please review the attached drawing and inform us of the correct area to measure for width of the head restraint. Your prompt response would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION

J. Kawano General Manager U.S. Office

JK:KY:gcm Enclosure -

"INSERT"

VOLVO-TYPE Head Restraint

ID: nht74-5.5

DATE: 02/20/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: House of Representatives

COPYEE: LAWRENCE R. SCHNEIDER -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY RICHARD B. DYSON

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In response to your February 11, 1974, request in behalf of a constituent, Mr. Frank Mills of Saint Louis, I would like to discuss the legal implications of modifications to the ignition interlock system on 1974 model passenger cars. I am not familiar with the booklet to which Mr. Mills refers.

The interlock is one part of Standard 208, which like any other safety standard issued under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, applies to new vehicles only. Once a vehicle is sold for purposes other than resale and the buyer takes delivery, he may modify the system or legally have the system modified by an automobile repair service to accommodate circumstances, such as physical incapacity, which make use of the belts unwise or inconvenient.

Whether or not a dealer's disconnection of an interlock system under any given specified set of circumstances would be legally permitted is a conclusion which the courts would determine if called upon to decide such an issue. The position of this agency is that any act by a dealer to disconnect an interlock system which could be related to a sales transaction or the introduction into interstate commerce of a motor vehicle is prohibited. In this respect, we support H.R. 5529 which would prohibit any motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business from removing or rendering inoperative any Federally-required safety equipment, including interlocks, from new or used vehicles. The prohibition would not apply to vehicle owners.

I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of this letter to Mr. Mills at his St. Louis address to assure receipt of the information by February 21, 1974.

February 11, 1974

Larry Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Will you please advise me on the legal aspects of the clarification of the seat belt law, which information has been requested by one of my constituents, Mr. Frank Mills, President of the Greater St. Louis Automotive Parts and Service Association of St. Louis, Missouri. For your information, I am enclosing herewith a copy of Mr. Mills' letter.

You will note that Mr. Mills has requested this information for use at the next meeting of his Association on February 21, 1974. If it is at all possible, I would like very much to fulfill his request.

Thank you for your cooperation in this instance.

Leonor K. (Mrs. John B.) Sullivan Member of Congress 3rd District, Missouri

Enclosure

GREATER ST. LOUIS AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & SERVICE ASSOCIATION

FEBRUARY 5, 1974

Lenore Sullivan 2221 Rayburn Bldg. Washington D.C. 20515

I am writing to request your booklet on the "Clarification of the Seat Belt" law. It is unlawful for the Automobile Dealers to disconnect this system, but an independent person feels he is not covered by this law. This does not seem logical.

When speaking with your Office, I explained as President of the Greater St. Louis Automotive Club, I wished to look into the proper legal aspects and discuss it at our next meeting, the 21st of February. They informed me, I must send my request to you and you would see it was received on time.

Thanking you in advance for your time and trouble.

Sincerely,

Mr. Frank Mills President

Copy: file

Please mail to:

Mr. Frank Mills 5204 Walsh St. Louis, Missouri 63109