ID: nht75-6.21

DATE: 02/28/75

FROM: RICHARD B. DYSON -- NHTSA ASSISTANT CHIEF COUNSEL

TO: GERHARD P. RIECHEL -- ATTORNEY VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

TITLE: N40-30

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/11/74 FROM GERHARD P. RIECHEL TO TAYLOR VINSON -- NHTSA, STANDARD 105-FAILURE INDICATOR LAMP

TEXT: Dear Mr. Riechel:

This responds to Volkswagen's December 11, 1974, request for a determination that a brake system indicator lamp which activates only upon application of the brake pedal with a control force of 50 pounds or more to signal a "gross loss of pressure" would meet the requirement of S5.3.3 of Standard No. 105-75, Hydraulic brake systems:

S5.3.3 Each indicator lamp activated due to a condition specified in S5.3.1 shall remain activated as long as the condition exists, whenever the ignition (start) switch is in the "on" ("run") position, whether or not the engine is running.

Your question arises as to the meaning of the phrase in S5.3.3 which requires that the lamp "remain activated as long as the condition exists", with reference to the condition described in S5.3.1(a) as "gross loss of pressure (such as caused by rupture of a brake line but not by a structural failure of a housing that is common to two or more subsystems)". You point out that a condition involving loss of pressure cannot exist in the absence of pressure, that is, after control force is removed from the brake pedal.

While the NHTSA has always believed that the requirement in question can best be satisfied by an indicator lamp which remains activated after the loss of pressure has occurred, we agree that the language in question could be more clearly drafted to express this intent. Accordingly, we plan to propose an amendment to the standard to eliminate this ambiguity. The proposed effective date of the amendment

will be far enough in the future so that any new design changes required to comply may be effected without undue burden on affected manufacturers.

Because we conclude that the reliance Volkswagen has placed on its alternative reading of S5.3.3 can be justified in this case, we would accept the limited warning offered by the system you describe as satisfying the current requirement in S5.3.3 with regard to S.5.3.1(a).

Yours truly,

ID: 08_003235--sa--08 June 24

ID: 86-5.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/29/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Rohit Vaidya

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your April 30, 1986 letter concerning Safety Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, and your planned built-in child seat. You asked for information concerning all safety standards that would be applicable to the seat and concerning a pending petition for amending Standard No. 213 to permit the installation of built-in child seats in new motor vehicles. I regret the delay in our response.

Standard No. 213 is the only standard which this agency has issued concerning child restraint systems. It was drafted at a time when add-on or portable systems were the only type of child restraint systems. Accordingly, the requirements of the standard are oriented toward that type of system. However, the agency has granted a petition to broaden the standard to permit the installation of built-in child restraint systems. We expect to issue a proposal regarding this matter later this year. Copies of the standard and the petition are enclosed.

As a new manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you should know that a manufacturer has a variety of responsibilities in addition to certifying compliance with all applicable safety standards. Manufacturers have the responsibility to conduct notification and remedy campaigns for safety-related defects or noncompliances with standards in their products. If a child restraint system fails to comply with Standard No. 213 or contains a safety-related defect, the manufacturer may elect to either (1) repair the child restraint so that the defect or noncompliance is removed; or (2) replace the child restraint with an identical or reasonably equivalent restraint which does not have the defect or noncompliance. Whichever of these options is chosen, the child restraint manufacturer must bear the expense for the remedy.

Installation of your product in a used vehicle would also be affected by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business from "rendering inoperative" in whole or in part, any device or element of design installed in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable safety standard. Such a rendering inoperative could occur, for example, if the installer of a built-in child safety seat removed the original vehicle seat, installed a replacement vehicle seat containing the built-in child safety seat, but did not ensure that the seat belt anchorages for adult seating positions in the replacement rear seat continued to meet the location and strength requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A rendering inoperative could also occur if the installer did not ensure that a replacement vehicle seat continued to meet the strength requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, to minimize the possibility of failure by forces acting on that seat as a result of vehicle impact.

Section 108(a)(2)(A) does not establish any limitations on an individual vehicle owner's ability to alter his or her own vehicle. Under Federal law, individual vehicle owners can themselves install any product they want on their vehicles, regardless of whether that product would render inoperative the compliance of the vehicle's seats or seat belt assembly anchorages with the requirements of Standards Nos. 207 or 210. However, the agency encourages vehicle owners not to install products which could lessen the occupant protection afforded by the original seats or safety belt assembly anchorages and thus adversely affect safety.

For further information concerning these responsibilities, please consult the enclosed information sheet for new manufacturers.

ENCLS(3)

OCC 0617

Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

April 30, 1986

Dear Madam,

This letter is in reference to the Federal Regulations regarding automobile child safety-seats - the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard # 213.

I am an inventor and I expect to be receiving a Letters Patent from the US Patent & Trademark Office for a child safety seat that is designed to be an integral part of a vehicle. I would be very grateful if you could send me a list of all current applicable test standards for automobile child safety-seats (including FMVSS #213, above).

Furthermore, I understand the above referenced standard #213 is under review because of a petition that has been submitted to your office to broaden the scope of the regulation. I also would like to request: (1) information on the status of this review; and (2) a copy of the petition.

Thank you very much.

Rohit Vaidya

cc: DR. C. CLARK, NHTSA MR. W. FONTAINE

ID: aiam1664

Dear Mr. Kato: This responds to Nissan's November 5, 1974, question whether the recen amendments of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, (as amended by 39 FR 38380, October 31, 1974) require a sequential ignition warning light and buzzer (S7.3.5.4) even during the 'excepted' situations where the formerly-required belt interlock system was not required to operate (former S7.4.3). These situations are after the engine is stopped, and either the ignition is still on or has been turned off for a period of not more than 3 minutes, or the driver has not left his seated position for more than 3 minutes.; It is true that our recent amendment of S7.3 and deletion of S7.4 coul be interpreted to require a sequential warning under the conditions you list. Such an interpretation would necessitate major modifications of the warning system that was required prior to the amendment. Our intent in making these amendments was, as noted in the preamble to the notice, only to require the deletion of the interlock feature.; Therefore we would not consider the use of a sequential warning syste which complied with the standard prior to the amendment to be in noncompliance with the standard as amended October 29, 1974. This means that Datsun automobiles will not be considered to violate Standard No. 208 if the sequential warning required by S7.3.5.4 does not operate under the 'excepted' conditions described above.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: aiam1953

Dear Mr. Kennebeck: This responds to Volkswagen of America's March 25, 1975, petition fo rulemaking to amend S4.5.3.3 of Standard No. 208, *Occupant crash protection*, to allow, at the manufacturer's option, visual warning lamps which remain activated whenever front outboard safety belts are not in use. Your petition states that it supersedes Volkswagen's February 20, 1975 petition for rulemaking.; Your petition explains that Volkswagen, in offering a passive bel system in its Rabbit model on an optional basis, provides an ignition interlock system and a passenger-side warning system to encourage passive belt usage, although such systems are not required by the standard. You correctly note that a January 16, 1975, letter to Volkswagen from the NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel indicates that additional safety devices such as these are not prohibited by our minimum safety standards, as long as their installation does not have the effect of causing required systems not to comply.; Your petition requests an amendment of Standard No. 208's warnin provisions to permit a visual warning longer than the 4- to 8-second reminder light presently required by S4.5.3.3. You apparently have concluded that language in our January 16 letter prohibits the provision of any additional visual warning with a duration different than 4-8 seconds.; Our January 16 letter states 'additional [safety] devices could not b installed if that installation has the effect of causing the required systems not to comply.' This does not prevent the installation of a second visual warning which operates continuously when seat belts are not in use at either front designated seating position. The manufacturer who provides such additional warning would only have to ensure that the required 4- to 8-second visual reminder required under S4.5.3.3 operates independently of the additional warning.; For this reason, we conclude that Volkswagen may provide the additiona warning it desires without amendment of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is denied as unnecessary. Please advise the NHTSA if this interpretation does not permit Volkswagen to provide the degree of additional warning for which it petitioned.; Sincerely, Robert L. Carter, Associate Administrator, Motor Vehicl Programs;

ID: aiam1685

Dear Mr. Gibson: This is in response to your letter of October 21, 1974, inquiring as t the effect of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121 on State laws relating to air brake performance. You ask whether California can impose requirements pertaining to parking brake release (on trucks and buses) and trailer emergency braking capability which differ from provisions contained in the Federal standard.; Section 103(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act o 1966 (15 U.S.C. 1392(d)) provides that no State or political subdivision of a State may promulgate or continue in effect standards applicable to an aspect of motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance which is covered by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard, unless the standards are identical.; Standard 121 includes provisions relating to truck and bus parkin brake performance and specifies requirements for an emergency braking capability on trailers. Promulgation by a State of a more restrictive parking brake requirement providing for the installation of a release not specified in the Federal standard is prohibited by S 103(d) since the Federal standard is intended to cover all aspects of parking brake performance. A State requirement specifying application of trailer service brakes on breakaway would also be preempted by Standard 121 since Section S5.8 of the Federal standard addresses the subject of emergency trailer braking capability.; The Federal requirements must be regarded as conclusive with regard t parking brake performance and emergency braking capability in order to maintain the uniformity necessary in a Federal regulatory scheme. If States were permitted to impose additional requirements in an area regulated by a Federal safety standard manufacturers would be confronted with an impossible task of compliance. This reasoning formed the basis of a recent decision rendered in a case brought by the Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc. against the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California concerning the preemption of a California State requirement that motorcycle headlamps be wired to operate when the engine is running. The Court held that the California requirement is preempted by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 since the NHTSA intended to cover all aspects of performance directly involving motorcycle headlamps.; Therefore, requirements such as those described in your letter would b preempted by Standard 121 since the aspects of performance that would be affected are covered by the Federal standard.; You also ask if your interpretation of Standard No. 121 t International Harvester is correct. In answer, I would like to set out a comprehensive explanation of the standard's requirements for parking brakes (S5.6) in relation to the requirements for emergency braking capability (S5.7, S5.8). I have separated the requirements for trailers from those for trucks, and further separated the truck requirements into the 'automatically-applied parking brake' systems (S5.7.1) and the 'modulated' systems (S5.7.2).; *Trailer brake requirements (other than trailer converter dollies)*. I addition to the requirement for a trailer service brake system (S5.3, S5.4), Standard No. 121 specifies that each air-braked trailer be equipped with an emergency capability (S5.8) and a parking brake (S5.6). The emergency braking capability calls for an automatic application of the parking brake system in the event the air pressure in the supply line is lost. This requirement ensures a back-up braking system in cases of service brake failure and brakes on the trailer in the event of a trailer break away.; The parking brake requirements for trailers specify that the brakes b applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure in the service brake system and that, once applied, the parking brakes be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means. The common method to meet this requirement is, of course, to use springs to apply and hold the friction elements of the service brake system. The requirements are intended to ensure that a parked vehicle will not lose its brakes if air is lost from the system by leakage.; The NHTSA recognizes that automatic application of the 'spring brakes (as an emergency capability) could cause a safety problem if they could not be released to move the disabled vehicle from the roadway. For this reason, S5.2.1.1 specifies that each trailer be equipped with a protected reservoir that is capable of releasing the vehicle's parking brakes at least once.; Your interpretation that Standard No. 121 requires control of this tan from the driver's position after an automatic application of the parking brakes is incorrect. The parking brake requirements of S5.6 specify a system for holding stationary a vehicle (or combination) which has a totally functioning brake system. Therefore, S5.6.4 does not establish requirements for application and release of the parking system of the towed vehicle in an emergency when, for example, a supply line to the towed vehicle has burst. The requirement of S5.7.2.2 that parking brakes remain operable is not addressed to trailers.; You pointed out in your July 11, 1973, comments to the docket that th standard should be amended to require that the trailer's protected tank be equipped with a manual valve that releases the parking brakes to permit moving a disabled trailer from the roadway. We are preparing a proposal on parking brake systems in response to an American Trucking Associations petition, which may be responsive to your suggestions.; *Truck (and bus) requirements*. In addition to the requirement for service brake system (S5.3, S5.4), Standard No. 121 specifies that each air-braked truck (and bus) be equipped with an emergency braking capability (S5.7) and a parking brake system (S5.6).; The parking brake requirements of S5.6, as noted above, specify system for holding stationary a vehicle (or combination) which as a totally functioning brake system. S5.6.4 does not therefore establish control requirements in the event of a failure in the system. Only the brake control requirements listed in S5.7 are required during and after a stop which follows a failure in the service brake system.; Section S5.7 permits the manufacturer to provide the emergency brak capability and associated controls in one of two ways: automatically-applied parking brakes (S5.7.1) or a modulated braking capability (S5.7.2). To our knowledge few if any manufacturers have chosen to build an emergency system which conforms to S5.7.1. Because the International Harvester (IH) system and those of other manufacturers conform to S5.7.2, the following discussion addresses only that option.; S5.7.2 specifies an emergency braking capability which can stop th truck or bus within a certain distance in the event of a failure of the service brake system other than a failure of a common valve, manifold, brake fluid housing, or brake chamber housing (S5.7.2.3). When a failure of this type occurs in the truck, S5.7.2.1 specifies that the towing vehicle emergency brake system control be capable of controlling service or parking brakes on any towed vehicle equipped with air brakes. This does not mean that control must be exercised over the trailer brakes if a failure occurs in the supply line or control line to the trailer.; S5.7.2.2 specifies a dynamic braking capability in the parking brak system (subject to manual application) in the event of a total failure of the service- emergency braking capability.; From a study of the brake system schematics for the IH split syste (with spring brakes), it appears that the system would comply with Standard No. 121. In your letter to IH you conclude that their system does not comply 'since the spring brake [on the truck] can not be released when the service air is lost.' You base your interpretation on language of S5.7.2.2 that 'loss of air [due to failure in both service and emergency modes] shall not cause the parking brake to be inoperable'. Your concern is that a failure of this nature would prevent a disabled vehicle from being moved from the roadway if the parking brake is not releasable.; As earlier noted, S5.7.2.2 specifies a dynamic parking brake capabilit in the event of catastrophic failure. This section is not a requirement that the parking brake operate as it would in a totally functioning and stationary vehicle. Such a requirement in S5.7.2 for release of the parking brakes to move the vehicle is impractical with some of the specified failures. Moreover, it is also unnecessary, because a modulated emergency system provides a driver with several applications and releases of the emergency brake system to move the disabled vehicle off the road after the signal from the warning system (S5.1.6) that the vehicle has lost its service brake system. These applications are the equivalent of the California requirement that the spring brake system be capable of being applied, released, and reapplied by the driver, following notice of the service brake system failure, as indicated by an automatic brake application.; You make the statement that IH must meet the requirements of S5.7.1. because its parking brakes apply automatically after both the service system fails and the emergency system is depleted. In fact IH has chosen to meet S5.7.2 and is not required to meet any of the specifications of S5.7.1.; Because these differences exist between the present Californi regulations and the soon-to-be-implemented Federal requirements, manufacturers like International Harvester will have difficulty in effecting an orderly transition to the new systems. We have encouraged manufacturers to introduce the new systems in small numbers before the effective date to gain some experience with them, and we feel that it would be unfortunate if these manufacturers were penalized by the States for their early introductions.; I invite comments from the State of California on our upcoming parkin brake system proposal.; Yours truly, Richard B. Dyson, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht79-2.31

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Jack Brooks - H. O. R.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

SEP 11 1979

NOA-30

Honorable Jack Brooks House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Brooks:

This responds to your note we received on August 29 enclosing correspondence from one of your constituents, Mr. Don Bush. Mr. Bush requests information concerning passive seat belts on a 1977 Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, he was told by the Society of Automotive Engineers that there are currently no standards for this type of restraint system.

The information given Mr. Bush by the Society of Automotive Engineers was incorrect. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards and regulations governing the manufacture of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, specifies requirements for restraint systems in passenger cars and other vehicles (49 CFR 571.208). For 1977-model passenger cars manufacturers had three options: (1) total passive protection (protection by means that require no action by vehicle occupants); (2) head-on passive protection; (3) the installation of combination lap and shoulder belts for front, outboard seating positions and lap belts for center and rear seating positions.

Volkswagen apparently certified its 1977-model deluxe Rabbit under the second option of the standard. This option requires the vehicle to meet specified injury criteria in a perpendicular barrier crash test, and to either meet lateral and rollover criteria in dynamic impact tests by automatic means or to install lap belts at front, outboard seating positions. Volkswagen used a single, diagonal passive belt to comply with the automatic frontal crash protection requirement of the second option. Additionally, paragraph S4.5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208 allows a passive belt to be used in lieu of any other belt required by any option of the standard. Therefore, Volkswagen's single, diagonal passive belt also qualifies as a lap belt for purposes of complying with the lateral and rollover requirements of the second option.

I am enclosing a copy of Safety Standard No. 208 for Mr. Bush's information. Please have him contact Hugh Oates of my office if he has any questions after reviewing the standard (202-426-2992). Mr. Bush might also note that General Motors voluntarily installed an active lap belt in its Chevettes that have passive shoulder belts (these vehicles were introduced in the spring of this year). Active lap belts in these vehicles are not required by the standard, however.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

2 Enclosures Constituent's Letter Standard No. 208

March 28, 1979

The Honorable Jack Brooks United States Representative District 9, State of Texas 2419 Rayburn Building Washington, DC 20515

Re: 1977 Volkswagon Rabbit passive shoulder belt restraint system

Dear Mr. Brooks:

I represent a young man who received serious head injuries in a traffic collision in which he was driving the vehicle in question. During the collision, our client was thrown against the door, the door flew open and our client was thrown out of the vehicle. We are of the opinion that the injuries were caused due to a defectively manufactured or designed passive restraint seat belt system.

We are in the process of gathering information so we can evaluate whether or not a law suit is appropriate. Today we contacted the Society of Automotive Engineers. The young man we spoke with told us that there are currently no standards for this type of passive restraint system. He did advise that there is at least one piece of legislation in Congress which deals with establishing such standards.

I would appreciate any help you could provide in the way of identifying, providing copies of or providing the names and addresses of someone who can advise me of the status of this legislation. I would also appreciate you referring me to any other individual or agency there in Washington who might be able to provide me with pertinent information.

Thanking you for your help in this matter, I am

Very truly yours,

Don Bush

DB/pw

ID: 24416ogm

Mr. William McAlister
McAlister Electronics Service Center
926 E. Fremont Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94087




Dear Mr. McAlister:

This responds to your letter requesting information regarding Federal regulations that govern seat belts in vehicles. You ask if vehicle manufacturers are required to provide a "lifetime" warranty for seat belts and seat belt assemblies and, if such a warranty is required, the procedures that would be employed to enforce that warranty.

Federal law authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue motor vehicle safety standards that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA has exercised that authority and established Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR 571.208), which requires safety belts to be installed at certain seating positions in new motor vehicles. In addition, Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies (49 CFR 571.209), contains minimum performance requirements for seat belt assemblies installed in new vehicles and sold as "aftermarket" equipment, and Standard No. 210 (49 CFR 571.210), Seat belt assembly anchorages, sets minimum standards for anchorage location and performance. Each new vehicle must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, including the requirements in Standards No. 208, 209 and 210. Federal law does not, however, require vehicles to comply with these standards after the first purchase for purposes other than resale.

None of the regulations or statutes administered by NHTSA require manufacturers to provide a lifetime warranty for seat belts. However, NHTSA has the authority to require manufacturers to replace seat belts under certain circumstances. If a vehicle or item of equipment is not more than ten years old and is determined to have a safety-related defect or fails to meet an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard, NHTSA can compel the manufacturer to remedy the defect or noncompliance without charge to the vehicle owner.

Your letter indicates that the automatic belt assemblies on your 1990 Ferrari Testarossa have ceased to function. A search of our recall database indicates that NHTSA or Ferrari have not determined that the automatic belt system of the 1990 Testarossa contains a safety-related defect. In the absence of such a determination, Ferrari is not required to repair or replace the belts by the statutes and regulations administered by NHTSA.

I hope that this is responsive to your request. If you have any questions, please contact Otto Matheke of my staff at 202-366-5253.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:208
d.8/22/02

ID: nht76-4.49

DATE: 07/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your March 16, 1976, request for assurance that paragraph S4.3(f) of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, does not apply to the mechanism in a continuous loop seat belt system that limits (prevents) transfer of belt webbing from the shoulder to the pelvic portion of the belt when the buckle is engaged. Your letter recommended that Standard No. 209 be amended to specifically exempt such adjustment mechanisms from the requirements of paragraph 4.3(f) or that separate, appropriate requirements for those mechanisms be established.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has determined that the adjustment mechanism described in your letter is not a "tilt lock" within the meaning of paragraph S4.3(f) of the standard, although the two mechanisms are superficially similar. Therefore, this mechanism does not have to comply with the requirements of paragraph S4.3(f).

We would like to emphasize our comments to you of June 13, 1975, regarding the requirement that a continuous loop assembly have a sufficiently low level of friction at the buckle mechanism to ensure that the lap portion of the belt is automatically adjustable. The friction in the buckle must be low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt tightens the lap portion of the belt to prevent excessive slack and possible submarining of the occupant.

The NHTSA has also considered Chrysler's petition to amend Standard No. 209 to establish "separate appropriate requirements" for the adjustment mechanism in question and decided that it should be granted. A notice proposing such modifications of the standard is anticipated in the near future.

As you are aware, the commencement of a rulemaking proceeding does not signify that the rule in question will necessarily be issued. A decision concerning the issuance of a rule is made on the basis of all available information developed in the course of the rulemaking proceeding, in accordance with statutory criteria.

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

March 16, 1976

James B. Gregory -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION AND PETITION FOR AMENDMENT OF @ 4.3(f) OF MVSS 209 - SEAT BELT ASSEMBLIES

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Recently, the U.S. Testing Company, Inc. conducted a test on our continuous loop (unibelt) seat belt system for the American Safety Equipment Corporation (our supplier). They are questioning whether an adjustment mechanism in a unibelt system utilizing a tilt-lock design superficially similar to the tilt-lock buckle of a Type 1 lap belt assembly needs to meet the requirements of @ 4.3(f) of MVSS 209, Seat Belt Assemblies.

In our opinion, these requirements should not apply to a unibelt adjustment mechanism, since its function is quite different from that of a tilt-lock buckle in a Type 1 lap belt assembly. In a Type 1 lap belt only assembly it is important that the tilt-lock buckle hold the webbing firmly in place without excessive slippage under load. Accordingly, the tests prescribed in @ 4.3(f) of MVSS 209 are appropriate for that application. In a continuous loop system, however, it is the retractor (not the adjustment buckle) which adjusts the belt webbing to the proper length and holds the webbing at that length under load. In a loop system, the primary purpose of the adjustment mechanism is to permit easy or automatic tightening of the total belt system by the retractor. Several of the continuous loop belt systems currently being used provide for this adjustment by use of a simple slip ring design which allows free movement of the webbing between the lap and shoulder belt portion of the system. This design does not have a buckle adjustment mechanism which holds the lap belt taut. Obviously, in these cases, the requirements of @ 4.3(f) do not apply. It is our opinion that this section is equally inapplicable if the adjustment device uses a tilt mechanism superficially similar to a tilt-lock of a Type 1 lap belt assembly in place of the slip ring.

On May 16, 1975, Chrysler engineers demonstrated our unibelt system to NHTSA personnel in the garage of the NHTSA headquarters. At that demonstration we pointed out the tilt-type adjustment feature designed into our system. In addition to allowing automatic tightening of the total belt system by the retractor our tilt-type buckle adjustor holds the lap belt taut once the user has tightened it. The feature was provided for the convenience of and added safety of belt users who like a tighter fitting lap belt than can be provided by a slip ring. Coupled with our window shade tension relief mechanism for the shoulder belt, it allows the belt user to have a snug fitting lap belt and a comfortable shoulder belt. This adjustment feature is accomplished by the use of a tilt-lock mechanism superficially similar to a tilt-lock buckle used with a Type 1 lap belt assembly. As noted above the design and function are significantly different, however.

We recognize that NHTSA does not give certification approvals or otherwise prejudge the compliance of a device. However, in a letter dated June 13, 1975 to S. L. Terry from the Administrator, it was noted that NHTSA personnel saw no evidence of design deficiency related to our unibelt system. The letter gave two important requirements for such systems: (1) the level of friction in the assembly must be low enough to allow "automatic adjustment" of the lap belt portion with normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder belt, and (2) devices that limit retractive action may only be used with seat belt assemblies that have an "individually adjustable lap belt." It is our understanding from the NHTSA representatives who participated in the demonstration that our system meets both of those requirements.

In view of questions concerning our understanding and interpretation of the standard, we request that NHTSA provide us assurance that @ 4.3(f) of MVSS 209 does not apply to the adjustment mechanism of a unibelt system using a design superficially similar to a tilt-lock buckle commonly used in Type 1 lap belt assemblies.

Secondly, we recommend that the standard be modified to specifically exempt such adjustment mechanisms from those requirements or that separate appropriate requirements for these mechanisms be established.

Very truly yours, S. L. Terry -- Vice President, Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

ID: aiam4908

"Dear Mr. Kenney: This responds to your letter concerning th applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, (49 CFR 571.302, copy enclosed) to your product, a roll bar top or 'Bikini Top' for use on vehicles such as Jeep Wranglers. You explained that the material would consist of three layers: a vinyl top layer, a flame retardant middle layer, and a brushed nylon tricot black backing as the lower layer. In addition, a binding fabric strip would be sewn around the edges of the roll bar top to lend stability and a finished appearance. You also explained that you may supply a tote bag in which the bikini top could be stored. Your questions are addressed below. By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has no authority to certify or approve motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) establishes a 'self-certification' process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that each of its products complies with all applicable safety standards. This agency periodically tests vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment for compliance with the safety standards, and also investigates alleged defects related to motor vehicle safety. The Safety Act also gives this agency authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The agency has exercised this authority to establish Standard No. 302. That standard sets forth flammability resistance requirements applicable to all new motor vehicles. If your bikini top is added to a new vehicle, i.e., before the vehicle is sold for the first time to a consumer, then it must comply with Standard No. 302. That standard applies to certain vehicle occupant compartment components, including convertible tops, on new motor vehicles. Your bikini top would be considered a convertible top. Persons selling new vehicles equipped with your convertible top would need to ensure that the vehicles, including your top, conform to Standard No. 302. Standard No. 302 does not directly apply to aftermarket items of motor vehicle equipment, i.e., accessories or additions to motor vehicles sold to owners of used vehicles. Nevertheless, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act could affect the use of a product such as yours sold in the aftermarket. That section prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or repair shops from knowingly 'rendering inoperative' devices or elements of design that were installed in a motor vehicle to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA does not consider it to be a violation of the 'render inoperative' prohibition when a dealer adds a convertible top which enables a vehicle to continue to meet Standard No. 302 and the other safety standards. The prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle. Thus, a vehicle owner would not violate the Safety Act by installing your bikini top, even if doing so would negatively affect the safety features of his or her vehicle. You should be aware that, as the manufacturer of an aftermarket item of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge. I note that, whether or not Standard No. 302 applies to your convertible top, the product's flammability characteristics could be relevant to whether it contained a safety related defect. I will now address your specific questions about Standard No. 302, on the assumption that the standard applies to your product. After explaining your belief that the main part of the material complies with Standard No. 302, you asked whether the binding fabric strip sewn all around the edges of the roll would also have to be made flame retardant. As explained below, the binding fabric strip would have to comply with Standard No. 302. Under sections S4.l and S4.2, any portion of a convertible top which is within 1/2 inch of the occupant compartment air space must meet the standard's flammability requirements. It is our opinion that the binding fabric strip sewn around the edges of your convertible top would be part of the convertible top and thus subject to this provision. I note that it is the agency's longstanding interpretation that a component 'incorporated into' a component that is listed in section S4.1 of Standard No. 302 is subject to the standard. A June 29, 1990 interpretation to Mr. Ed McCarron (copy enclosed) explains this policy in the context of a mattress. In particular, that interpretation addressed whether a fabric 'corner reinforcement' that is stitched on the outside of the mattress cover was subject to Standard No. 302. In answering in the affirmative, the interpretation explained that the corner reinforcement is incorporated into the mattress cover through the stitching process. By analogy, your 'stitched binding strip' would be incorporated into your convertible top and thus subject to Standard No. 302. The interpretation letter to Mr. McCarron further explained the testing procedures related to composite materials. Any components that do not adhere to other materials at every point of contact would be tested separately under S4.2.1. Any components that adhere to other material at every point of contact would be tested as a composite with the other material. The sample enclosed with your letter indicates that the binding fabric strip does not adhere to the main part of the bikini top at every point of contact. Instead, the binding strip is folded over the edge of the main part of the bikini top and held in place by single stitching. Therefore, it would be tested separately from the main part of the bikini top. You also asked whether a tote bag used to store the roll bar top would be required to comply with Standard No. 302. The answer to that question is no. The list of components subject to Standard No. 302 set forth in S4.1 does not include a tote bag or similar item. Finally, you stated that you understand that you must conform to 49 CFR Part 566, Manufacturer Identification, and asked whether there would be anything else that would apply to your product. No NHTSA requirements other than those discussed above would apply to your product. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992. Sincerely, Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel Enclosure";