ID: nht91-1.4

DATE: 01/01/91

FROM: UNDER SECRETARY -- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, KUWAIT

COPYEE: THE MINISTER'S OFFICE; THE UNDER SECRETARY; INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS; STANDARDS & METROLOGY DEPT.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 11-13-92 FROM PAUL J. RICE TO UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (PART 574; STD. 109; STD. 119; A40; PART 571)

TEXT: We have studied your above mentioned standards with interst and we would appreciate if you please reply to following questions:

1) Do all tyres manufactured and sold in the US must bear the (DOT) mark?

2) What are the basises for granting the right to use the (DOT) mark by the manufacturer on their tyres?

3) Is the (DOT) mark required for local consumed and exported tyres also?

4) Is there a validity time for the use of the (DOT) mark?

5) What is the relation ship between your administnation and the Department Of Transportation concerning the implementation of the use of the (DOT) mark?

6) What are the legal responsibility of the manufacturer by using the mark.

7) What are the responsibility of the manufacturer in case of violation of mark's roles.

We would appreciate if you please kindly furnish us with all information and document concerning the above mentioned subject.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

ID: nht91-1.40

DATE: February 14, 1991

FROM: Anne Lombardi -- Acting Director, Office of Passenger Enforcement and Facilitation, Department of the Treasury

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-11-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Anne Lombardi (A37; VSA 102(3) Part 591)

TEXT:

We have Military Customs Advisors stationed around the world who provide information and guidance to Military Customs Inspectors performing preshipment examinations of automobiles and other vehicles. We would appreciate your opinion on a question which was raised by our Advisor stationed at Subic Bay in the Philippines.

Military and DOD civilian employees stationed in that country frequently purchase automobiles which are composites of old chassis and engines, of U.S. manufacture, and new bodies and interiors, fabricated and attached to the chassis by local Filipino car shops. Normally, the chassis and engines were not taken abroad by the importers, but were purchased in the Philippines from other sources. In most cases the chassis are said to have been manufactured prior to January 1, 1969.

The question is simple. Which DOT regulations apply to these automobiles, those applicable to the year the chassis was manufactured, or those applicable to the year the new body is attached?

We are writing to you at the recommendation of the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance. Additional information, if needed, is available from Sid Allshouse at (202) 566-5607.

ID: nht91-1.41

DATE: February 14, 1991

FROM: Michael L. Harmon -- President, Classic Interiors

TO: Paul J. Rice -- Chief Console

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Michael L. Harmon (A38; Std. 213)

TEXT:

It was brought to my attention after having a conversation with Dee Fujita that the built in child restraint system (photo enclosed) we developed and tested to FMVSS 213 for use in multi purpose passenger vehicles may or may not comply with code 213's definition and/or application of built in child restraint systems. If you could please clarify S4. of Part 571 of FMVSS 213 defining a "build in child restraint system" as to whether or not the use as an"integral part of a passenger car" includes multi purpose passenger vehicles. If it is considered part of please advise if not what can I do to encourage the inclusion of multi purpose passenger vehicles in the code 213 test standards.

Attachment

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM TEST RESULTS

Tests conducted for CLASSIC INTERIORS

Purchase order M. Harmon

TEST NUMBERS: HF 9003-07 Testing date: October 25-30, 1990

The University of Michigan Medical School Department of Surgery, Pediatric Surgery Section

Child Passenger Protection Research Program c/o UMTRI, 2901 Baxter Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Test methods and data limitations and use. (Text omitted)

CHILD RESTRAINT SYSTEM Test Number: HF 9007 TEST DATA SUMMARY Test Date: 10/30/90 Model: Hassel Free Safety Seat integrated in Classic Interiors chair, Dygert frame with stop pins, Atwood track, Monitor reinforced pedistal

Manufacturing Status: experimental

SET-UP

Part 572 3-year-old Frontal impact Forward facing 30 mph, 20 G Chair full rearward Seatback at 4th detent

RESULTS Average Velocity 30.5 mph Acceleration 20.4 G

Buckle Release Force Pre-Test NA Post-Test NA

Head Excursion 27.4 in. Knee Excursion 20.0 in.

Head Injury Criterion 343 Interval 85 to 188 ms Chest Peak Resultant 32 G Duration over 60 G 0 ms

Seatback/Cushion Angle Maximum 62 deg.

Post-Test 83 deg. (right)

Comments: No head/leg contact. Seatback latch operational after test. More seatback rotation on left side, where back of-frame slipped past stop.

Sled Profile and Head Acceleration and Chest Acceleration Graphs dated 10-30-90. (Graphs omitted)

Brochure describing the Classic Safety Seating System. (Text and photos omitted.)

Copy of Federal Register, section 571.1. (Text omitted.)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 571, dated 3-23-87, proposed rules dealing with FMVSS - Child Restraint Systems. (Text omitted.)

Copy of 49 CFR Part 571, dated 1-22-88, final rule. (Text omitted.)

Copy of Part 552.1-552.9 petitions for rulemaking, defect & noncompliance orders. (Text omitted.)

ID: nht91-1.42

DATE: February 15, 1991

FROM: Jerry Ralph Curry -- NHTSA

TO: John D. Dingell -- Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7-10-90 from John D. Dingell to Jerry R. Curry; Also attached to letter dated 1-9-90 from Mehdi Rowghani to Taylor Vinson; Also attached to letter dated 4-9-90 from Stephen P. Wood to Mehdi Rowghani

TEXT:

Your letter of July 10, 1990 about the applicability of NHTSA's safety standards to replacement parts was misplaced. This is indeed unfortunate, embarrassing, and I can assure you extraordinary. You asked me to review an April 9, 1990 interpretation letter from our Office of Chief Counsel to Mr. Rowghani, which indicated that Standard No. 214, Side Door Strength, applies only to new vehicles, and not to doors sold as replacement parts.

In view of your concern about replacement parts, we have reviewed that interpretation, and our authority regarding replacement parts. Many of our safety standards apply only to complete vehicles, while others apply only to the individual components (whether original or replacement equipment). Some apply both to vehicles and to the components involved. Each of our standards includes an "Application" section, which clearly defines the scope of coverage, based on the nature of the safety issue and the vehicle/equipment items involved.

NHTSA's standards which apply to equipment (both original and replacement equipment) generally cover those types of items which can be used in many different vehicle lines, which are frequently replaced or sold separately, and which can be independently tested. These include such items as brake hoses (Standard 106), lamps and reflectors (Standard 108), tires (Standards 109, 117 and 119), windows and windshields (Standard 205), safety belt assemblies (Standard 209), child safety seats (Standard 213), and motorcycle safety helmets (Standard 218). Other safety systems require testing in a full-vehicle context, and our safety standards are applied to the vehicle rather than the component. Examples include brake performance (Standards 105 and 121), occupant crash protection (Standard 208), head restraints (Standard 202) and roof-crush resistance (Standard 216), as well as side-door strength.

As noted in the April 9 letter, Standard 214 applies only to whole cars, not to replacement parts, as stated in the application section (see S2 of Standard 214, copy enclosed). While most manufacturers have chosen to meet the Standard by adding reinforcement beams, we are aware of at least one vehicle (a gray-market imported Mercedes-Benz) which passed the standard's compliance test without such a beam. Further, while intuitively it seems that doors without a reinforcement beam are not as safe as ones with a beam, efforts to document a safety problem have been unsuccessful.

The current compliance procedures specify testing a door as part of a new vehicle (see S4 of Standard 214), since it does not appear feasible to specify an appropriate procedure for testing an individual new door (whether original or replacement) by itself. The reason for this is that a door's performance in resisting intrusion is dependent not only on the structure of the door itself, but also other factors such as the vehicle frame into which the door fits, and the hinges and latches which hold the door in place within the frame. In addition, vehicle seats may help resist intrusion and protect occupants. The current standard reflects these factors.

While the current standard does not apply to replacement doors, NHTSA has full authority to pursue any alleged safety problems with doors or any other vehicle components under the "defects" provision of the Safety Act. If evidence demonstrated that certain replacement doors presented an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety, the agency could order the manufacturer of such doors to repair or replace such doors. At the present time, however, we are not aware of a safety problem with replacement doors that would warrant the commencement of a defects investigation.

I appreciate your interest in the safety of vehicle parts and hope this information is helpful. For further discussion of the legal issues regarding the applicability of standards, your staff should feel free to contact our Chief Counsel, Mr. Paul Jackson Rice, at 366-9511.

ID: nht91-1.43

DATE: February 15, 1991

FROM: Sidney A. Garrett -- President, Brown Cargo Van Inc.

TO: U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-7-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Sidney A. Garrett (A37; Std. 108)); Also attached to letter dated 4-25-90 rom Stephen P. Wood to J. Douglas Smith (Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are manufacturers of truck van bodies and need an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Specifically we need an interpretation of the location of the front identification and clearance lamps.

The three amber identification lamps are to be attached at the same height, as close as practicable to the vertical centerline, and as close as practicable to the top of the vehicle. The two amber clearance lamps, indicating overall width, are to be attached at the same height, one on each side of the vertical centerline, and as near the top as practicable.

Our question is if the truck cab comes with all five amber lamps mounted on its top as in Exhibit 1, does this meet the standard and therefore we do not need to install additional lamps? If this does not meet the standard, then we need to know if either Exhibit 2, with only the clearance lamps attached to the van body, or Exhibit 3, with both clearance lamps and identification lamps attached to the van body, meets the standard.

We are trying to minimize our costs and do not want to install unnecessary lamps as long as we are meeting all safety standards. Also, we are in the process of redesigning the front of our van bodies and would like to have the answer to our question as soon as possible so that our engineers can proceed.

If you need any additional information, please contact me at 800-255-6827.

Attachment

Photos of a cargo van (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht91-1.44

DATE: February 19, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Walter E. Gundaker -- Acting Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-26-90 from Walter E. Gundaker to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 5576)

TEXT:

This responds to your December 26, 1990 letter concerning mechanical hand and foot driving controls. These controls are intended to enable persons who have limited use of their arms or legs to drive a motor vehicle. In your letter you stated that, because these controls raise questions regarding motor vehicle safety, your agency would like to revoke their present classification as a class II medical device. However, before you do this, you would "need assurances that these driving controls for handicapped persons do fall in the jurisdiction of NHTSA and that significant complaints of malfunction would be investigated by NHTSA." The following is a summary of our statutory authority in this area.

Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. The driving controls that are the subject of your letter would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment, within the meaning of the Safety Act. However, this agency has not issued any standards setting forth performance requirements for controls for disabled drivers. Obviously, these controls could not be determined to be in noncompliance with a safety standard if there is no applicable safety standard.

Another possible source of authority for NHTSA would be S108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies that, 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." This statutory prohibition would be violated if a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business installed a mechanical hand or foot driving control so as to "render inoperative" any of the elements of design installed in the original vehicle in compliance with one of our safety standards. However, when NHTSA has been asked about this in the past, the agency has generally stated that it would not institute enforcement proceedings under section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act against dealers or repair shops when a particular vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability.

Finally, the agency has authority to investigate allegations that items of motor vehicle equipment, such as these controls, contain defects related to motor vehicle safety, and to order the equipment manufacturer to notify owners and to remedy without charge any items of equipment determined to contain a defect related to motor vehicle safety, as provided in sections

151-160 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1420). If there were indications that these controls contained a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the agency would investigate and take appropriate actions. Of course, as with any investigation of alleged safety-related defects, the outcome would depend on the facts of the specific investigation.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht91-1.45

DATE: February 19, 1991

FROM: Howard "Mac" Dashney -- Pupil Transportation Consultant, State of Michigan, Department of Education

TO: Paul Rice -- NHTSA

COPYEE: Roger L. Lynas; Richard Claflin

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4-12-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Howard "Mac" Dashney (A37; VSA 1391(3); Part 571.3)

TEXT:

During the past 14 months, Michigan has experienced legislative and vehicle sales initiatives that have resulted in confusion among school districts and private fleet operators about vehicles used to transport students. On August 15, 1990, Public Act 187 (PA-187) of the Public Acts of 1990 went into effect. I have included a copy of the act. Section 10(1) states that, "A vehicle for which there are no applicable passenger protection federal motor vehicle safety standards shall not be used to transport passengers to and from school and school related events." Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors officials sent letters to their Michigan dealer networks. I have included a copy of Ford Motor Company's letter. The automobile manufacturers directed their dealers not to lease or sell certain types of vehicles to schools. They are multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events. The Michigan Department of Education, Department, has many questions about the purchase, sale, and use of this type of vehicle.

The Department requests that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration respond to the following questions:

1. Do Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, FMVSS, apply to multi-purpose vehicles with seating positions for more than 10 passengers, passenger vans, used to transport students to and from school and related events?

2. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell passenger vans to school districts or private fleet operators when the purpose of those vehicles is to transport students to and from school and related events?

3. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

4. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES passenger vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

5. Are FMVSSs in effect for occupants of sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans with seating positions for fewer than 10 passengers used to transport students to and from school and related events?

6. Is it legal for automobile manufacturers or dealers to lease or sell sedans, station wagons, and mini-vans to school districts or private fleet operators for the purpose of transporting students to and from school and related events?

7. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it PURCHASES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

8. Does a school district or private fleet operator increase its liability risk if it USES sedans, station wagons, or mini-vans to transport students to and from school and related events?

The passage of PA-187 and a restrictive vehicle sales policy have caused confusion among Michigan's school bus fleet operators. Your timely responses to the above questions will assist the Department prepare an appropriate vehicle use policy.

Please direct your response to Howard "Mac" Dashney, Pupil Transportation Consultant, Michigan Department of Education, P.O. Box 30008, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

Attachment

FORD

K. C. Magee Ford Motor Company General Marketing Manager 300 Renaissance Center P.O. Box 43318 Detroit, Michigan 48243

December 14, 1989

To: All Ford Dealers

Subject: Sale or Lease of Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons for Student Transportation

PURPOSE

This letter is intended to help remedy confusion that apparently exists among some dealers as to what vehicles may be lawfully sold or leased for student transportation. Both Federal and state motor vehicle safety laws and regulations apply to such vehicles.

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, and related regulations specify that school buses offered for sale shall meet certain unique requirements.

"School bus" is defined in the regulations as "a bus that is sold, or introduced into interstate commerce, for purposes that include

carrying students to and from school or related events, but does not include a bus designed and sold for operation as a common carrier in urban transportation.

"Bus," in turn, is defined as "a motor vehicle ... designed for carrying more than 10 persons." 49 Code of Federal Regulations S571.3.

Units Having More Than Ten Seating Positions

Because Ford Club Wagons and Super Wagons having more than ten designated seating positions do not comply with the requirements of Federal standards specifically applicable to school buses, they should not be sold or leased for transportation of preprimary, primary, or secondary school students to and from school or related events.

For sells incomplete vehicles (Econoline Vans and Cutaways with School Bus Prep Packages and B-Series Chassis Cowls) to be completed as school buses by specialized school bus manufacturers.

Units Having Ten or Fewer Seating Positions

The Federal school bus standards do not apply to Ford 5, 7 and 8 passenger Club Wagons as these vehicles are not "designed for carrying more than 10 persons."

There may be, however, state or local regulations requiring special equipment or identification that must be satisfied before the lower capacity Club Wagons may be used for student transportation. It is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations are applicable.

Units for Transportation of College or University Students

Questions sometimes arise concerning sale or lease of Club Wagons and Super Wagons to colleges and universities to transport students on field trips or athletic events.

An opinion from the Office of the Chief Counsel of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator indicates that vehicles used for such purposes are not considered to be "school buses" in determining applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

However, as the opinion points out, individual states are free to regulate vehicles used to transport college and university students if they chose to do so.

Dealer Responsibilities

Because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has indicated that it considers the seller of a vehicle to be the person most likely to know its intended use, Ford Motor Company recommends that all dealers who sell or lease a Club Wagon or a Super Wagon as manufactured by Ford Motor Company with more than 10 designed seating positions obtain for his files

a signed statement from the purchaser or lessee that the vehicle is not being purchased or leased for carrying students to and from school or related events.

If a dealer sells or leases such a vehicle and knows or has reason to know that the purchaser or lessee intends to use the vehicle as a school bus, the dealer may be subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per vehicle under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

As stated above, it is the responsibility of the dealer and the purchaser to determine whether any state or local regulations apply to vehicles sold or leased for student transportation.

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact your district office.

K. C. Magee

ID: nht91-1.46

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Louis F. Wilson -- Instant Traffic Lights

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 2-20-90 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 9-1-89 from Louis F. Wilson to NHTSA; Also attached to letter dated 3-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Louis F. Wilson (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

We are writing this letter in reference to our letters dated September 1, 1989 and February 20, 1990. As of today's date, we have not received any reply from your department.

Along with this letter we will attach the letters dated September 1, 1989 and February 20, 1990 as well as a prototype sample of our product. In light of that what we would like to know is: Would our product meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #108?

Thank you for your time and consideration and we eagerly await your reply.

ID: nht91-1.47

DATE: February 20, 1991

FROM: Saburo Inui -- Corporate Manager, Toyota Motor Corporate Services of North America, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Interpretation of FMVSS No. 108 -- High Intensity Discharge Headlamps

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3-25-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Saburo Inui (A37; Std. 108)

TEXT:

This is a request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") No. 108 concerning High Intensity Discharge Headlamps ("HID").

Although in the February 8, 1990 amendment of FMVSS 108 (Docket No. 85-15; Notice 12) NHTSA clarified that HID headlamps are not excluded as integral beam headlamp systems, Toyota has some additional concerns.

1. Configuration:

S5.4, Equipment combinations, provides that "(t)wo or more lamps . . . may be combined if the requirements for each lamp . . . are met . . . ."

S4. Definitions, defines "Integral Beam Headlamp" as "a headlamp comprising an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source, that is neither a standardized sealed beam headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.3 nor a replaceable bulb headlamp designed to conform to paragraph S7.5."

The Toyota HID headlamp comprises "an integral and indivisible optical assembly including lens, reflector, and light source" (see Figure 1), and although it contains replaceable bulbs (the inexpensive parking lamp and turn signal lamp bulbs are replaceable), it is not a "replaceable bulb headlamp DESIGNED TO CONFORM TO PARAGRAPH S7.5." (Emphasis added.)

Therefore, the Toyota combination HID headlamp system is not precluded by FMVSS 108, provided of course that all other applicable requirements are met. (To suggest otherwise would require the replacement of the entire assembly at substantial cost should only an inexpensive parking lamp or turn signal bulb fail.)

2. Hard-wire connection:

Due to limited space for accommodation of HID headlamps in the vehicle, it may not be practicable to integrate the ballast (starter and converter) into the headlamp enclosure.

In one case, the ballast would be divided into two units -- a starter and a converter -- permanently connected using hard-wire (electrical wire resistant to cutting and abrasion) as depicted in Figure 2.

Such a headlamp configuration would still constitute an integral beam headlamp system, we believe.

3. Hard-wire and connector:

In some cases, vehicle body construction may dictate that the ballast units be installed in the vehicle separately, and then permanently connected electrically.

In such cases, electrical connectors would have to be provided between the starter and the converter as depicted in Figure 3.

To be considered an integral beam headlamp system under FMVSS 108, we believe all three of the following conditions would have to be met by such an HID headlamp:

(1) Connectors would be permanently coupled at vehicle assembly.

(2) Only complete headlamp systems would be available as replacement parts, and not individual parts, such as a starter or converter.

(3) Connectors supplied with replacement parts for use by repair shops and garages would be designed to be fastened permanently after coupling (they would self-destruct if they were subsequently forced apart), and would be described in the shop manuals.

With these three conditions, headlamp replacement would always mean replacement of the entire headlamp system, resulting in consistency with conventional integral beam headlamp systems.

This "hard wire" or "hard wire and self-destruct connector" arrangement is indispensable to enable us to install our HID headlamp system into our U.S. vehicles. We therefore seek NHTSA's confirmation of our interpretations concerning the use of these headlamp systems.

Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Manabu Morisaka of my staff at (202) 775-1707.

Attachments

Figures 1, 2, and 3 (Graphics omitted)

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.