ID: nht81-3.4

DATE: 08/04/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jean's Portable Highchair & Car Seat

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

ENCLS.

July 15, 1981

Vladislav Radovich Office of Crashworthiness National Highway Traffic Safety Admin.

Dear Mr. Radovich:

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

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

Statement of Facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 4, 1981

Karl C. Clark Office of Vehicle Standards & Restraints

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Please return the pictures. . .

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

July 1, 1980

Michael A. Brown Consumer Product Safety Commission

Dear Mr. Brown:

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

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

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

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

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: nht92-2.32

DATE: 11/13/92

FROM: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: PAUL JACKSON RICE -- CHIEF COUNCEL, NHTSA; UNDER SECRETARY -- MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, KUWAIT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER FROM UNDER SECRETARY, KUWAIT MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY TO PAUL J. RICE

TEXT: Due to some information received by the ministry that there are some companies who were dumping some defected and regected tyres in the area and for the safety of vehicles passengers the Ministry of Commerce & Industry had issued the Ministrial Degree no 3/1982 requiring that all imported vehicles tyres must be brand new and complying with international standards and that every shipment of such tyres must be accompanied by quality certificate issued by independent officially recognize body as an authority which has an ability of testing and prooving the quality of these tyres in accordance with these standards.

Accordingly we have received the certificates of quality from many authorized agencies from different countries and most of these certificates are valid for aperiod of time (One year - two years)

For U.S.A. we have not been able to obtain such certificate and the only certificate we are receiving now from a company named Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS) which issued certificate for each shipment separetally and which does only visual test and not actual labrotary testing.

In order to obtain information concerning regulations and standards for motor relicles we have contacted the USA embassy in kuwait who has supplied us with standards NO, 569, 571.109, 571.110, 571.117, 571.119, 571.120, 571.129, 574.1 - 6, 575.1 - 7, 575.101 - 104, which have been issued by your administration.

This responds to your letter concerning United States tire regulations. You stated that some companies have been reported to be dumping defective and rejected tires in your country. In response to that situation, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a decree requiring that all imported tires must be new, must comply with international standards, and must be accompanied by a quality certificate issued by an independent, officially recognized authority which has the capability of testing and proving the quality of the tires in accordance with the standards. You stated that you have been unable to obtain such a certificate from the United States, but have received one from a company called Societe Generale de Surveillance, which issues a certificate for each shipment separately and does only visual tests and not laboratory testing. You stated that you have studied this agency's tire standards and posed a series of questions to us which I will endeavor to answer below.

By way of background information, under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, ("Safety Act," 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. Tires are considered motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment must certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards.

All new tires sold in the United States for use on passenger cars must be certified as complying with Standard No. 109 (49 CFR Part 571.109), and all new tires sold for use on other motor vehicles must be certified as complying with Standard No. 119 (49 CFR Part 571.119). These standards specify performance requirements (strength, endurance, high speed performance, and for passenger car tires only, resistance to bead unseating), marking requirements (treadwear indicators and labeling information), and tire and rim matching information requirements.

The process of certifying compliance with the applicable safety standards under the Safety Act is considerably different in the United States than in other countries. For example, the European nations require manufacturers to deliver tires to a governmental entity for testing. After the governmental entity tests the tires, the government approves those tires for use and assigns an approval code to the tires. The Safety Act, on the other hand, establishes a "self-certification" process for tires sold in the United States. Under this process, the tire manufacturer, not a governmental entity, certifies that its tires comply with applicable safety standards.

The Safety Act does not require that a manufacturer base its certification on a specified number of tests. A manufacturer is only required to exercise due care in certifying its tires. It is the responsibility of the individual tire manufacturer to determine initially what test results, computer simulations, engineering analyses, or other information it needs to enable it to certify that its tires comply with Federal tire safety standards. Once a manufacturer has determined that its tires meet all requirements of the safety standards, it certifies such compliance by molding the letters "DOT" onto at least one sidewall of each certified tire.

This agency does not perform any pre-sale testing or approval of tires. Rather, NHTSA randomly tests certified tires to determine whether the tires do, in fact, comply with applicable standards. For these enforcement checks, NHTSA purchases tires "off the shelf" from retail tire dealers and tests those tires according to the procedures specified in the standards. If the tires pass the tests, no further action is taken. If the tires fail the tests and are determined not to comply with the standards, the tire manufacturer is required to recall the tires and remedy the noncompliance without charge.

With the above background in mind, I now turn to your specific questions:

1. Must all tires manufactured and sold in the United States bear the "DOT" mark? Answer: Yes, assuming that the tires are intended for use on motor vehicles. The "DOT" symbol molded onto at least one side of the tire is the manufacturer's certification that that tire complies with all applicable safety standards.

2. What are the bases for granting the right to use the "DOT" mark by tire manufacturers? Answer: The use of the "DOT" symbol on tires is a requirement imposed on tire manufacturers and not a right which is granted.

3. Is the "DOT" symbol required for tires intended both for domestic consumption and for export? Answer: NHTSA's safety standards do not apply to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment which are intended solely for export. Therefore, the "DOT" symbol is required only for tires intended for use in the United States.

4. Is there a validity time for the use of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: No. The symbol constitutes the manufacturer's certification that, at the time a new tire is manufactured, that tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

5. What is the relationship between your administration and the Department of Transportation concerning the implementation of the "DOT" symbol? Answer: NHTSA is a subordinate agency of the United States Department of Transportation.

6. What are the legal responsibilities of manufacturers by using the "DOT" symbol? Answer: As indicated above, by placing the "DOT" symbol on a tire the manufacturer certifies that, under the provisions of the Safety Act, the tire complies with all applicable Federal safety standards.

7. What are the responsibilities of manufacturers in case of violations of the "DOT" symbol's role? Answer: If a tire is determined not to comply with a safety standard, the manufacturer is required to remedy the noncompliance without charge. In addition, violations of Safety Act provisions may result in civil fines.

I hope that the information in this letter is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions, however, please feel free to contact Mr. Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992, FAX (202) 366-3820.

ID: 7331

Christian Hammarskjold
Vice President
USSC Group, Inc.
20 Union Hill Road
West Conshohocken, PA 19428

Dear Mr. Hammarskjold:

This responds to your letters of May 28, 1992 concerning suspension seats. Your first letter states that you have been asked by SCRTD in Los Angeles to develop a system that will allow your suspension seats for the driver's seating position in transit buses to tilt from side-to-side. Your letter states:

In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to- side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

With respect to seats which tilt side-to-side, you are correct that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, does not include a performance requirement addressing side-to-side strength. Standard No. 207 requires certain specified forces to be applied only in a forward direction and in a rearward direction. All seats, in all vehicles, except for side-facing seats or passenger seats in buses, must be capable of withstanding these forces when tested in accordance with the S5 of Standard No. 207.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. The defect responsibility is a broad one and would include the side-to-side performance of your seat. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a vehicle containing your seat has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. You may be interested in a current proposal to amend Standard No. 207 to establish revised test procedures for pedestal seats. I have enclosed a copy of the notice for your information.

Your second letter asks when shoulder belts will be required on suspension seats. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle, not based on seat design. I have limited the following discussion of safety belt requirements to trucks and buses, as I am unaware of any passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles which contain suspension seats. As explained below, shoulder belts are required at every forward-facing outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; at the driver's seating position and at every forward-facing outboard seating position in buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; and at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. Shoulder belts are not required at any other seating positions in these vehicles or in trucks or buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

The requirements for trucks are contained in sections S4.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Sections S4.2.2 and S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208 give vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 1997. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions, and either meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or a lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3 requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. In addition, each Type 2 seat belt assembly (i.e., lap/shoulder safety belts) installed at a front outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less must satisfy the dynamic testing requirements in S4.6.

S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies that a Type 2 seat belt assembly must be installed at each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991.

Section S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 specifies a phase-in of trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less that must satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 (Option 1 above). Twenty percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995 must meet this requirement; 50 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996; 90 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997. All trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 must comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. In addition, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for buses are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. In addition, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Section S4.4.3 requires buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position and at every front and rear forward-facing seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. As mentioned previously, buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 are subject to the phase-in requirement for automatic occupant protection.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

Attachment

ref:207#208 d:8/10/92

ID: nht92-4.42

DATE: August 10, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Signature by John Womack

TO: Christian Hammarskjold -- Vice President, USSC Group, Inc.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letters dated 5/28/92 from Christian Hammarskjold to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your letters of May 28, 1992 concerning suspension seats. Your first letter states that you have been asked by SCRTD in Los Angeles to develop a system that will allow your suspension seats for the driver's seating position in transit buses to tilt from side-to-side. Your letter states:

In addition, USSC is concerned that there are not applicable FMVSS requirements that address a side-to-side strength requirements. 207/210 requires a pull from the front of the seat. What happens if there is a side impact on a suspension seat that has a ball and socket joint. Are there any applicable performance requirements that may apply to such a system.

With respect to seats which tilt side-to-side, you are correct that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, does not include a performance requirement addressing side-to-side strength. Standard No. 207 requires certain specified forces to be applied only in a forward direction and in a rearward direction. All seats, in all vehicles, except for side-facing seats or passenger seats in buses, must be capable of withstanding these forces when tested in accordance with the S5 of Standard No. 207.

However, you should be aware that manufacturers are subject to the requirements in SS151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. The defect responsibility is a broad one and would include the side-to-side performance of your seat. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a vehicle containing your seat has a safety-related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

You may be interested in a current proposal to amend Standard No. 207 to establish revised test procedures for pedestal seats. I have enclosed a copy of the notice for your information.

Your second letter asks when shoulder belts will be required on suspension seats. The safety belt installation requirements are set forth in Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. This standard specifies requirements based on vehicle type and seating position within the vehicle, not based on seat design. I have limited the following discussion of safety belt requirements to trucks and buses, as I am unaware of any passenger cars or multipurpose passenger vehicles which contain suspension seats. As explained below, shoulder belts are required at every forward-facing outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; at the driver's seating position and at every forward-facing outboard seating position in buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less; and at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions in school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or

less. Shoulder belts are not required at any other seating positions in these vehicles or in trucks or buses with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds.

The requirements for trucks are contained in sections S4.2 and S4.3 of Standard No. 208. Sections S4.2.2 and S4.2.3 of Standard No. 208 give vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991 and before September 1, 1997. Option 1, set forth in S4.1.2.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide automatic protection at the front outboard seating positions, lap or lap/shoulder belts at all other seating positions, and EITHER meet the lateral crash protection and rollover requirements by means of automatic protection systems or have manual safety belts at the front outboard seating positions such that those positions comply with the occupant protection requirements when occupants are protected by both the safety belts and the automatic protection. Option 2, set forth in S4.1.2.2, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a lap or a lap/shoulder safety belt at every seating position, have automatic protection for the front outboard seats, and have a warning system for the safety belts provided. Option 3, set forth in S4.1.2.3 requires the manufacturer to install lap or lap/shoulder safety belts at every seating position and to have a warning system for those belts. In addition, each Type 2 seat belt assembly (i.e., lap/shoulder safety belts) installed at a front outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less must satisfy the dynamic testing requirements in S4.6.

S4.2.4 of Standard No. 208 specifies that a Type 2 seat belt assembly must be installed at each forward-facing rear outboard seating position in trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991.

Section S4.2.5 of Standard No. 208 specifies a phase-in of trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less that must satisfy the requirements of S4.1.2.1 (Option 1 above). Twenty percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 and before September 1, 1995 must meet this requirement; 50 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1995 and before September 1, 1996; 90 percent of trucks and buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1996 and before September 1, 1997. All trucks and buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1997 must comply with the requirements of S4.1.2.1.

Section 4.3.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in trucks with a GVWR of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after September 1, 1990. Option 1, set forth in S4.3.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at all seating positions that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.3.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install lap or lap/shoulder belts at every seating position. In addition, S4.3.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of a lap/shoulder belt must have either an emergency locking retractor (ELR) or an automatic locking retractor (ALR).

The requirements for buses are contained in S4.4 of Standard No. 208. Section 4.4.1 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of two options for providing occupant crash protection in buses manufactured on or after September 1, 1990.

Option 1, set forth in S4.4.1.1, requires vehicle manufacturers to provide an automatic protection system at the driver's seating position that meets the frontal and lateral crash protection and rollover requirements. Option 2, set forth in S4.4.1.2 requires vehicle manufacturers to install a lap or lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position. In addition, S4.4.2.2 specifies that, if a manufacturer chooses to comply with Option 2, the lap belt or pelvic portion of the lap/shoulder belt must have either an ELR or an ALR.

Section S4.4.3 requires buses, other than school buses, with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's seating position and at every front and rear forward-facing seating position, and either a lap belt or a lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. School buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less, manufactured on or after September 1, 1991, are required to have a lap/shoulder belt at the driver's and right front passenger's seating positions, and either a lap belt or lap/shoulder belt at every other seating position. As mentioned previously, buses with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or less manufactured on or after September 1, 1994 are subject to the phase-in requirement for automatic occupant protection.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: GRACIA.LTR

Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
Executive Director
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
Suite 800
1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036

Re: Gracia v. Volvo Europa Truck, N.V.,

N.D. Ill., Civ. No. 87-C-10005

Dear Mr. Bryant:

This is in response to your letter requesting that the United States file an amicus curiae brief with the Seventh Circuit in the above-referenced case, in which the District Court ruled that the plaintiff's claims are preempted by Federal law.

Although the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagrees with both the result and the rationale adopted by the District Court, we have decided not to request the Department of Justice to file an amicus brief. A brief discussion of our views on this legal issue and the basis for our decision not to participate is set forth below.

As you are aware, NHTSA has consistently taken the view that, as a general matter, Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) issued under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 preempt state common law actions only in very limited situations, which do not appear to apply here. Our views on this issue were most recently stated in the amicus curiae brief filed by the United States in Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 115 S. Ct. 1483 (1995).

To summarize, judgments under the common law can effectively create "standards" that would be expressly preempted by the "preemption clause" of Chapter 301, 49 U.S.C. 30103(b)(1),⁽¹⁾ if that clause stood alone. However, the "savings clause," 49 U.S.C. 30103(e),⁽²⁾ precludes a finding that suits seeking to recover damages on the basis of a manufacturer's failure to go beyond the requirements of a standard are expressly preempted. Moreover, such suits are impliedly preempted only in those relatively rare cases where the common law duty sought to be imposed on an auto manufacturer would create an actual conflict with a NHTSA safety standard, either because it would be impossible to comply with both state and Federal requirements or because the judgment would "stand as an obstacle to" or "frustrate the purpose of" federal law.

As we understand the facts in the Gracia case, the plaintiff was injured when she was "thrown through the windshield" of a model year 1986 Volvo truck that had a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds and which was a "forward control vehicle." One of NHTSA's safety standards, FMVSS No. 212, "Windshield mounting," 49 CFR 571.212, imposes performance requirements for windshields of certain vehicles. The standard applies to passenger cars and to trucks with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. It does not apply to certain types of trucks, including "forward control vehicles," even if they have a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds.

The District Court concluded that NHTSA's decision to exclude forward control vehicles from the reach of the standard preempted plaintiff's product liability action. In our view, this conclusion is both factually and legally incorrect.

First, the focus by the parties and the court on the agency's rationale for excluding "forward control" trucks with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds from the reach of FMVSS No. 212 is misguided, since the GVWR of the vehicle involved in this crash was greater than 10,000 pounds. As with almost all of its safety standards, NHTSA did not explicitly consider applying FMVSS No. 212 to heavy trucks, regardless of whether they were forward control vehicles.

More generally, although we agree that a NHTSA decision not to regulate can preempt state common law actions, see Arkansas Elec. Co-op Corp. v. Arkansas Public Serv. Comm'n, 461 U.S. 375, 384 (1983), it will do so only where the intent to preempt is "clear and manifest." See Toy Mfrs. Of America, Inc. v. Blumenthal, 986 F.2d 615, 622-623 (2d Cir. 1992), citing Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Lab., Inc.,

471 U.S. 707, 718 (1985). Here, there was no such intent, and none was indicated in any of the documents issued by the agency during its consideration of this standard.⁽³⁾

The regulatory materials quoted in the District Court's opinion indicate that the primary basis for NHTSA's exclusion of forward control vehicles (with a GVWR of less than 10,000 pounds) was a concern that it would not be "practicable" for such vehicles to comply with the existing standard.⁽⁴⁾ In no way did this reflect a NHTSA conclusion that efforts by maufacturers of forward control vehicles to reduce the possibility of ejections through the windshield (either by satisfying the performance requirements of the standard or through other means) would have an adverse impact on safety. Rather, it reflected a NHTSA determination that applying FMVSS No. 212 to such vehicles would not be appropriate in light of the statutory criteria for FMVSSs set out in Chapter 301.

A decision not to regulate on this basis does not in itself "preempt the field." In other words, while the exclusion of certain vehicles from the reach of FMVSS No. 212 relieves the manufacturers of those vehicles from any duties with respect to windshield retention under Chapter 301, it does not immunize those manufacturers from a duty of care that might be imposed under state law.⁽⁵⁾

Thus, as noted above, we believe that the District Court's opinion is incorrect. However, to our knowledge, this is the first case in which a court has improperly concluded that a NHTSA decision not to regulate an aspect of performance of certain vehicles preempts a state common law action seeking damages based on an alleged failure with respect to that aspect of performance. Therefore, in keeping with NHTSA's long-standing policy of minimizing its involvement in private tort litigation, we believe that it would not be appropriate to participate formally in this case. In the unlikely event that this erroneous view of the scope of "negative" Federal preemption proliferates in the future, the agency may decide to participate in a subsequent case.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

cc: Wayne F. Plaza, Esq.

Bruce R. Pfaff, Esq.

ref: 103(d)#108(k)

NCC-10:KWeinstein:August 9, 1996; revised:August 16, 1996

Printed: August 26, 1996 (cyb)

1. "When a motor vehicle safety standard is in effect under this chapter, a State . . . may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle . . . only if the standard is identical to the standard prescribed under this chapter. . . ."

2. "Compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law."

3. Although we cannot anticipate all possibilities, it is likely that NHTSA would "negatively" preempt state law only if it concluded that a specific item or design feature would have an adverse effect on motor vehicle safety. For example, if NHTSA had decided that headrests above a certain size should not be required because they would interfere with driver visibility, a claim by a plaintiff that a manufacurer's failure to equip a vehicle with a larger headrest led to neck injuries would be preempted, even in the absence of an explicit ban on such headrests.

4. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30111(a), each FMVSS "shall be practicable, meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and be stated in objective terms."

5. NHTSA takes no position on whether the windshield retention system in this particular vehicle was "unreasonably dangerous" or what duty of care a state might reasonably impose through its common law. (Presumably, NHTSA's views on the technological options avilable to manufacturers of forward control vehicles would be considered by courts and juries considering those issues.) Similarly, NHTSA takes no position on whether this crash led to a "foreseeable impact," as alleged by plaintiff, or on the relevance, if any, of the facts that the plaintiff apparently was not seated in a designated seating position and apparently was not wearing a safety belt.

ID: nht76-2.32

DATE: 07/23/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: R. H. Willcox, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of June 16, 1976, asking several questions with respect to the applicability of 15 USC 1397(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 (49 CFR 571.108) to a product manufactured by your client, the W.B. Marvin Manufacturing Company. This product is "a screen which fits on the front part of the automobile and protects the radiator, headlamps and other lower parts of the car" from bugs.

W.B. Marvin would not be in violation of either the Act or Standard No. 108 by manufacturing and selling these screens. Such liability as may exist centers on the installation of them. Standard No. 108 establishes requirements for lighting equipment on new motor vehicles, and for replacement equipment. One of the requirements of SAE Standard J580a, Sealed Beam Headlamp, June 1966, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, is that "a headlamp, when in use, shall not have any styling or other feature, such as a glass cover or grille in front of the lens." Since the screen is positioned in front of the headlamps it would be an "other feature" of the type intended to be prohibited by the standard if, as appears likely, it affects compliance with headlamp photometrics (SAE Standard J579) or headlamp aim (SAE Standard J580). If installation results in a noncompliance, the screen could not, therefore, be legally installed by a vehicle manufacturer, distributor, or dealer as original equipment on a motor vehicle.

As for replacement equipment, under Section 1397 (a)(2)(A) of the Act an automobile owner may himself modify his vehicle in any manner he chooses, but modifications performed at his request by others may not "render inoperative in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on . . . a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." If installation of the screen affects compliance with headlamp photometrics or other requirements, then it would appear to "render inoperative" a lighting device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, within the meaning of Section 1397(a)(2)(A). Installation by the auto service center of the retailer would therefore be prohibited, since such a facility is deemed a "motor vehicle repair business."

There are no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that directly apply to the screen as an item of motor vehicle equipment, nor do I know of any other Federal regulation affecting it.

I hope this letter is responsive to your questions.

YOURS TRULY,

CHESTER, HOFFMAN, PARK, WILLCOX & ROSE June 16, 1976

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank Berndt Acting Chief Counsel

Re: W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co.

Our firm represents The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. of Urbana, Ohio. They have contacted us concerning a product they wish to manufacture for use on automobiles which may involve the application of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, particularly Standard 108 relating to headlamps. I personally have talked with Mr. Vinson of your office concerning the problem and he has advised me to write to you requesting an opinion concerning this situation. There is also a question as to the applicability of Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act as amended in 1974.

The residents of south Florida have been bothered for years by the "lovebug" problem. These bugs appear in large numbers and accumulate on the headlamps and windshields and other parts of the cars driven on the south Florida highways. The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. has designed a screen which fits on the front part of the automobile and protects the radiator, headlamps and other lower parts of the car from these bugs. At the same time, it is designed to direct the air flow in such a fashion that the bugs are diverted over the windshield so that they do not have an opportunity to come in contact with the windshield at all. This screen has been tested in Florida and had proved to be very successful. Pictures of the screen are enclosed for your information. The screen is designed for easy installation and removal. Tubes are attached to the front bumper of the car. The screen is attached to the car by sliding tubes affixed to the screen into the tubes affixed to the front bumper. Because of this design, the screen can be assembled relatively simply by the car owner or any auto service center. The car owner by himself may then mount the screen on the front of the car or remove it as required.

Without the screen, the bugs are plastered against the headlamps, thus affecting the amount of light coming from the headlamps. With the screen, the bugs will be on the screen, which is easily cleaned, rather than the headlamps. However, there is no question that when installed the screen will reduce the amount of light produced by the headlamps on to the roadway and this raises the question as to the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

It is W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Company's intention to manufacture this screen and sell it to a retailer such as Sears Roebuck & Co. The retailer would sell the screen directly to the car owner who could either install it himself or have it installed at the retailer's auto service center.

Our client is ready to manufacture this screen and sell it to a retailer or retailers as described above. However, we do not want to advise them to proceed if the manufacturing of the screen or the manner in which the screen is sold and installed in any way violates any applicable Federal laws, rules or regulations. We are therefore requesting your opinion as to the applicability of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to the manufacture, sale and installation of this screen. In this regard, we raise the following questions: 1. Do the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in particular, Standard 108, apply to this screen as manufactured by The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co.?

2. By manufacturing and selling the screen described above, is The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. in violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and in particular Standard 108?

3. By manufacturing and selling the screen as described above, is The W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co. in violation of Section 108, Subparagraphs A (1) and A (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended in 1974?

4. Is there any violation of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act if the screen in question is manufactured by W. B. Marvin Manufacturing Co., sold by them to a retailer such as Sears Roebuck & Co. and sold by the retailer to the automobile owner who installs the screen himself?

5. If the car owner purchases the screen from a retailer and has the screen installed at the retailer's auto service center, is the retailer and/or the manufacturer in violation of Section 108, Subparagraphs A (1) and A (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act as amended in 1974?

6. Does the auto service center of the retailer constitute a "motor vehicle repair business" as used in Section 108, Subparagraphs A (2) (a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

7. Does the manufacturing, sale and installation of the screen in question come within the meaning of the phrase "render inoperative" as that phrase is used in Section 108, Subparagraph A (2) (a) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?

8. To your knowledge, are there any other Federal statutes or regulations which would prevent the manufacturing and sale of this screen?

As indicated before without the use of the screen the bugs will be plastered against the headlamps and windshield of the vehicle, thus affecting the visibility of the driver. With the screen, the bugs will be contained on the screen from which they can be easily removed and will be diverted over the windshield. In view of this, it does not appear to us that the use of the bug screen renders the vehicle less safe than without the screen. Therefore, if it is your opinion that Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is applicable to this situation, we hereby request that you exempt the manufacturer and the retailer from the application of Section 108.

If you need additional information, please call the undersigned and I will provide you with what you need if possible. Thank you for your consideration of this problem.

Roderick H. Willcox

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht79-2.16

DATE: 11/02/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative - Safety Engineering Office of North America Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. 1919 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 707 P.O. Box 57105 WashinSton, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Murakami:

This is in response to your letter of September 14, 1979, in which you asked about the applicability of the variable intensity illumination requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 101-80, Controls and Displays, to various components in your company's automobiles. You listed and identified these parts in Figure 1 of your letter which will refer to in answering your questions.

The variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80 are applicable to (1) "con- trols, gauges, and their identification, and to (2) any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated." As noted in section 5 of Safety Standard 101-80, the location identification, and illumination requirements are applicable only to passenger cars and other vehicles equipped with any control listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1. The term "gauqe" is defined in Section 4 as a "display that is listed in section 5.1 or in Table 2 and is not a telltale."

Applying these criteria to the list of automobile components in your letter, I have concluded that none of the listed components, except the ordinary clock and the automatic gear position illumination lamp, are subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3 of Safety Standard 101-80. Since this result resolves the issues raised in Questions Q2.1 - Q2.5 of your letter, I have not addressed them in this response.

The components identified in your diagram by letters a - h (the room lamp, spot lamp, luggage room lamp, personal lamp, radio, foot lamp step lamp, and the luggage room lamp for hatchback vehicles) are not subject to the requirements of section 5.3.3. This is because they are not controls listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 1 of Safety Standard 101-80 and because they do not illuminate the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated.

Similarly the glove box lamp and the console box lamp (items i and j) are not subject to section 5.3.3. They are not controls listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and they are not activated when and only when the headlights are activated since their activation requires both opening the box lids and switching on the headlights.

The ignition key illumination lamp (item k), which is not a control listed in Safety Standard 101-80, is activated when the light control switch is turned to the "small lights only" position (this activates the clearance clamps, identification lamps, and other exterior lamps other than the headlights.) When the switch is turned to the position that activates both, the small lights and the headlights, the key illumination lamp is deactivated. Consequently, the lamp is not activated when and only when the headlights are activated and is, therefore, not subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements.

You noted in conversation with Ms. Debra Weinner of my office that your company uses two types of clocks (item 1 in your letter) in its automobiles. One is an ordinary clock whose face is illuminated when and only when the headlights are activated. The requirements of section 5.3.5 would apply to the illumination of this type of clock.

The other clock used in your company's automobiles is a digital clock with a flourescent readout which shines with greater intensity during the day and with a lower intensity at night when the headlights are activated. Since this clock is not a control or a display listed in Safety Standard 101-80 and its illumination is not activated when and only when the headlamps are activated, the requirements of section 5.3.3 for continuously variable illumination are not applicable. Section 5.3.3 also provides that light intensity for informational readout systems shall have at least two values. The term "informational readout systems" which is not defined in Safety Standard 101-80 refers to the term "informational readout display," which is defined as "a display using light-emitting diodes, liquid crystals, or other electro illuminating devices where one or more than one type of information or message may be displayed." The term "display" includes only those displays listed in section 5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2 of the standard and these listings do not include a digital clock. Therefore, the digital clock would not be subject to the light intensity requirements for informational readout systems.

The automatic gear position illumination lamp (item m in your letter) is subject to the variable intensity illumination requirements of section 5.3.3. Although it is not a control (see preamble to Safety Standard 101-80, 43 FR 27541, June 26, 1978) this lamp is activated when and only when the headlights are activated.

In Question 2 of your letter, you asked for the definition of the terms "continuously variable" and "variable." The term "continuously variable" is defined in section 5.3.3(a) and (b) of Safety Standard 101-80. It is followed by a description of the two light intensities which must be provided for informational readout systems. The term "variable" appears in the next sentence in section 5.3.3 which states that:

"The intensity of any illumination that is provided in the passenger compartment when and only when the headlights are activated shall also be variable in a manner that complies with this paragraph.

The underlined words in the quoted sentence refer to the definition of "continuously variable" except in the case of informational readout displays where the words refer to illumination of two intensities.

If you have any further questions, I will be happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 14, 1979

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

Dear Mr. Berndt:

Re FMVSS 101-80 - Controls and Displays I would like to take this opportunity to ask for your interpretation with regard to FMVSS No. 101-80 - Controls and Displays.

I would appreciate it if you could please answer the questions that I have attached.

Thank you for your usual fine cooperation.* CR Very truly yours,

NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.

Hisakazu Murakami Technical Representative Safety

HM:kb

Attachments Q-1 Generally speaking, would it be necessary for each one of items (a) to (m) in Figure-1 to meet the requirements of S 5.3.3?

Q-2 Assuming that your answer to Q-1 is "yes",

Q-2.1 Please explain the reason for your answer being "yes"

Q-2.2 Would the light intensity of (a) to (e), as shown in Figure-1, and having individual "On-Off" Manual Switches be considered variable?

Q-2.3 Would the light intensity of (f) Foot Lamp, (g) Step Lamp and (h) Luggage Room lamp, which light automatically only when doors are open, and not when they are closed, be considered variable?

Q-2.4 Would the light ingensity of (i) Glove Box Lamp and (j) Console Box Lamp, which are placed in their boxes and light only when the headlights are activated and their lids are open, be considered variable?

Q-2.5 Would the light intensity of (k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp, which is placed near ignition key cylinder and lights only when clearance lamps, identification lamps and side marker lamps, etc. (other than headlights) are lit, be considered variable?

Q-2.6 Would the clock (1) with the flourescent display be considered to be the informational readout system?

Q-2.7 Assuming that your answers to Q-2.2 -Q-2.5 are "no", please explain the definition of the word "variable" and "not continuously variable".

Q-2.8 Would the light intensity of (m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp, which is placed on the floor-console box, be required to be variable, or continuously variable?

**INSERT** (a) Room (Dome) Lamp

(b) Spot Lamp (like one in airplane)

(c) Luggage Room for wagon vehicle -

(d) Personal Lamp for rear seat passengers

(e) Radio

(f) Foot Lamp

(g) Step Lamp

(h) Luggage Room Lamp for hatchback vehicle

(i) Glove Box Lamp

(j) Console Box Lamp

(k) Ignition Key Illumination Lamp (l) Clock

(l) Clock

(m) Automatic Gear Position Illumination Lamp -

FIGURE - 1

ID: nht81-3.48

DATE: 12/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH AND CERTIFICATION, INC.

October 19, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert P. McEvoy President

ENC.

REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO IMPORT NON-CERTIFIED MOTOR VEHICLES

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. A three-way catalytic converter.

5. An evaporative emission control system.

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

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

2. Modification of vehicles to use unleaded fuel only.

3. Installation of evaporative emission control systems.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht74-3.16

DATE: 08/19/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your August 1, and July 30, 1974, request for approval of hydraulic and vacuum brake hose labeling. We have evaluated your examples based on the labeling requirements of the standard as amended by Notice 11 of Docket No. 1-5.

The hydraulic brake hose marking on "Face A" appears to conform to the requirements of S5.2.2, assuming that letter "size" refers to letter height. The interval between markings, represented by "--", also conforms. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

With regard to the markings for brake hose end fittings, the date (indicated by "XY") is not required. If you choose to add the date to your markings, it should not interfere with the legibility of the required markings. I would like to point out that under Notice 11, the marking requirements do not apply to end fittings "attached by deformation of the fitting about a hose by crimping or swaging." This means that hydraulic hose fittings for use in passenger cars need not be labeled.

The brake hose assembly markings you submit appear to conform to the requirements of the standard.

With regard to vacuum brake hose, your "Face A" appears to conform to S5.2.2 if letter "size" refers to letter height. S5.2.1 is not applicable and therefore the stripe is not required. "Face B" is not regulated by our standard.

We have placed "MRCC" on file as the manufacturer designation for your company.

Yours truly,

MEIJI RUBBER & CHEMICAL CO., LTD.

July 30, 1974

Docket Section National Highway Traffic Safety ADMIN.

Subject: Submission of Comments on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards Docket No.1-5: Notice 10

By our letter (Our Ref. No. T-76) March 25, 1974, we asked for your approval of our hydraulic brake hose and Vacuum brake hose labeling.

However, [Docket No.1-5: Notice 10] has been issued, so we would like to ask for your approval of the attached application as corrected.

This was planned according to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards [Docket No. 1-5: Notice 8] Federal Register, Vol.38, No. 218-Tuesday November 13, 1973 and [Docket No. 1-5: Notice 9] Federal Register. Vol. 39, No. 20 Tuesday January 29, 1974.

The places to be corrected are indicated by the symbol(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE). The reason for each correction is indicated by the symbol (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE).

H. Tsukano, Sub-manager

Technical Division

August 1, 1974

Richard B. Dyson Assistant Chief Councel -- NHTSA

We thank you very much for your sending Notice 11.

We apply again on July 30.

This Ref T-129 is the same contents as Ref T-85 which we sent on may 29, '74.

I remain for today

H. Tsukano Sub-manager

Technical Division

LABERING

1. HYDRAULIC BRAKE HOSE

1. Hydraulic brake hose (ID 1/8")

1-1. Printed parts

1-2. Face A (printed mark)

<--(symbol illegible) (every 4 inches-->

-- DOT MRCC 1o/74 1/8 HR -- DOT MRCC

Notes: The color of printed letters is white.

The size of a letter is 1/8".

The width of line is 1/16".

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1-3. Face B (printed mark)

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) MEIJI RUBBER JAPAN 1/8 NO57-1 1974 SAE J1401 (which is indication of the approval for the export to a northern state (pennsylvania).)

Notes: The white letters are printed continuously

The size of a letter is 1/8".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE): The trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hoses

1974: year of production

NO57-1: The approval number of RMA (Rubber Manufacturers Association) (444 Nadison Avenue, New York 10022, U.S.A.)

Line number 57

Yarn color code yellow-yellow-black

RMA assignment Meiji Rubber Company, Ltd. attained on March 1st, 1967

SAE JI401 Society of Automotive Hydraulic Brake Hose

2. Hydraulic brake hose and fitting

Dot MRCC (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) 1/8XY

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/16"

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber and Chemical Co.

1/8: The inside diameter of hose

X is the figure of production that comes after 197

Y means the month of production

3. Hydraulic brake hose assembly

DOT MRCC 10/74

Notes: Letters stamped

The size of a letter 1/8"

Rubber band width 6mm

red colored

hypalon rubber MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

II. Vacuum Brake Hose (ID 11/32)

1. Printed parts

(A) Face A (printed mark)

(every 5 inches)

--- DOT MRCC 10/74 11/32 VL --- DOT MRCC

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 4mm

The width of line 2mm

MRCC stands for Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co. 11/32 means the inside diameter of hose.

(B) Face B (printed mark)

(every 5 inches)

-- (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Japan 11/32 LD GD2 SAE JI403 (SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) ---

Notes: The white letters printed

The size of a letter 4mm

The width of line 2mm

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) is the trade mark of Meiji Rubber & Chemical Co.

11/32 is inside diameter of hose.

LD is Light-Duty Type.

GD2 is the month and year of production code according to SAE specifications.

As our hose will be imported into the United States only as equipment used in Hond Civic or Mitsubishi Dodge Colt and other vehicles or as parts for the maintenance of these, you can get any further necessary details from the office of these corporation.

FOR INFORMATION

1. Hydraulic Brake Hose

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) 1-2. "Every 6 inches" should be corrected to "every 4 inches".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: According to Notice 10 the interval 6" should be under 6". this hose is used in 4" lengths and can be printed in only one place.

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Hydraulic brake hose assembly Rubber band width 8mm should be corrected to 6 mm.

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: To harmonize the letter size of 1/8" and to make it easier in printing.

II. Vacuum Brake Hose

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Inside diameter 3/8 inch should be corrected to 11/32 inch.

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: The actual measurment is nearer 11/32" than 3/8".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) Every 6 inches" should be correct to "every 5 inches".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The size of a letter should be corrected from "5 mm" to "4 mm".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE)The width of line should be corrected from "3 mm" to "2 mm".

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The reason: To harmonize letter and hose size and to print more clearly. (every 6 inches)

--- M --- MRCC JAPAN ---

The above mentioned mark should be corrected as follows according to SAE specifications by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (every 5 inches)

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) JAPAN 11/32 LD, GD2 SAE JI403

(SYMBOL ILLEGIBLE) The size of a letter should be corrected from "5 mm" to "4 mm". 11/32 is inside diameter of hose.

LD is Light-Duty Type.

GD2 is the month and year of production code according to SAE specification.

As our hose will be imported into the United States only as equipment used in Honda Civic or Mitsubishi Dodge Colt and other Vehicles or as parts for the maintenance of these, you can get any further necessary details from the office of these corporation.

ID: X Prize