ID: nht79-3.38

DATE: 03/01/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent petition to amend Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, to exempt active lap belts installed in conjunction with passive upper torso restraints from the anchorage location requirements of the standard.

The agency has determined that amendment of the standard as you request is unnecessary since active lap belts and their associated anchorages are not required to comply with Federal safety standards if installed voluntarily by a manufacturer in addition to a single, diagonal passive belt. The passive restraint requirement of Safety Standard No. 208 will require passive protection in frontal crashes and, either passive protection in lateral and rollover crash modes or the provision of Type I or Type II active belts for protection in lateral and rollover crash modes. The agency has previously stated, most recently in a letter to Volkswagen dated August 1, 1977, that the provision in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 allowing the substitution of any passive belt system (whether or not including a lap belt) for any other belt system otherwise required, is intended to apply to the provisions of S4.1.3(c) that specify either passive protection or the provision or Type I or Type II belts.

Since active lap belts installed in conjunction with single, diagonal passive belts are not required, they are voluntary additions by the manufacturer. The agency has stated in past interpretations that systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the passive belt in this case) to comply with Federal safety standards. This means that your proposed restraint system would have to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 both with and without the active lap belt fastened.

Since the change you requested is unnecessary in light of this interpretation, the agency will consider your petition withdrawn.

SINCERELY,

Ford Motor Company

December 14, 1978

Joan B. Claybrook Administrator Nationalk Highway Traffic

Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Claybrook: Re: Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Ford Motor Company (Ford), pursuant to Section 124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended, and 49 CFR, Section 552.3, submits this Petition for Amendment of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210) hereinafter "the Standard". Ford requests the Standard be amended to exempt active lap belts used in conjunction with passive upper torso restraints from the location requirements specified in S4.3.1.1.

Ford plans to offer in two of its 1980 passenger cars an optional passive belt restraint system for front seat occupants. This optional passive belt system will include a passive upper torso restraint, knee bolsters and an active lap belt. The active lap belt when used will provide additional protection to occupants in side and rollover type accidents. The passive belt system will comply with the passive restraint criteria required by Section 4.5.3 of FMVSS 208 with the without the active lap belt being employed. One of the design configurations of the active lap belt being developed, however, does not meet the anchorage location requirements of the Standard.

In this design, the lap belt retractor will be located on the inboard side of the bucket seat and its anchorage is located forward of the zone specified in Section 4.3.1.1 of the Standard. This configuration will permit forward motion (translation) of the occupant in a crash, which in turn will allow the occupant's knees to contact the knee bolster -- a desirable circumstance. We believe permitting increased forward translation of the occupant will result in more efficient distribution of impact forces during a frontal collision.

As the Administration indicated in its preamble to Docket 72-23; Notice 5, published November 16, 1978, ". . . the agency has determined manufacturers should be given wide latitude in passive belt design in order to facilitate the early introduction of passive systems. . . ." In a similar sense, this request for amendment will contribute to earlier introduction of passive systems. Further, if this petition is not granted on a timely basis, it could hinder our efforts to introduce a passive belt option prior to the required incorporation date.

As Ford intends to certify that vehicles equipped with the passive belt meet the injury requirements of Standard 208 with and without the active lap belt, and because the additional active lap belt will provide added protection in side and rollover accidents, we believe this petition, if granted, should contribute to the safety of front seat occupants.

Ford, therefore, respectfully requests that the last sentence of S4.3 of Standard 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages (49 CFR 571.210) be amended as follows (added text indicated by underlining):

"S4.3 . . . Anchorages for passive belt systems that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, and active lap belt systems, installed in conjunction with such passive belt systems, are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

J. C. Eckhold Director Automotive Safety Office (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht80-2.46

DATE: 06/06/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: International Harvester Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of April 30, 1980, asking whether a new electrical switch complies with S4.5.5 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

As you have described it, the switch has three positions under two of which ("IGN/ACC" and "ACC") the hazard warning signals will operate. The third position, however, ("OFF") is a master switch which disconnects most electrical circuits on the vehicle including hazard warning signals. You have asked whether this design is permissible under S4.5.5 which requires the vehicular hazard warning signal operating unit to "operate independently of the ignition or equivalent switch." You have cited as precedent a 1972 letter from this agency to Imperial Fire Apparatus approving a battery disconnect switch design. In the 1972 system the hazard signals would only be activated by turning both the master switch and the flasher to "on". This was acceptable to NHTSA under paragraph 3(e) of SAE J910, Hazard Warning Signal Switch:

". . . providing the master switch is separate from the ignition switch and the hazard warning signal lamps will flash with the master switch on and the ignition switch off."

The principal difference between the two systems is that your switch "is a part of the ignition switch assembly and not physically located elsewhere on the instrument panel."

The intent of S4.5.5. is that the hazard warning signals operate regardless whether the ignition switch is on or off.

This intent would not appear to be met by your system whose master switch is part of the ignition switch assembly. We suggest, therefore, that you modify your design so that the hazard warning signal circuit is added to that of the "CB" and clock which remain operable when the master switch is in the "off" position.

SINCERELY,

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER

April 30, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration US Department of Transportation SUBJECT: Ignition Switch with Master Off Position/FMVSS 108 S.4.5.5

Gentlemen: International Harvester Company (IH) is planning to introduce a new electrical switch on its new models. This switch incorporates a master "OFF" position which disconnects most electrical circuits on the vehicle. The OFF (master) switch performs essentially the same function as the one described in the attached interpretation #N41-34 dated August 11, 1972 except that it is a part of the ignition switch assembly and not physically located elsewhere on the instrument panel. This ignition switch has three positions "IGN/ACC", "ACC", and master "OFF". With the switch in the IGN/ACC position, the engine and accessories circuits are on. When the switch is turned to the "ACC" position, the engine is off and all accessories can be operated including the hazard warning flashers (key can be removed in this position). When the switch is turned to the master "OFF" position, all electrical circuits will be off except for the clock and "CB" circuits. These circuits must remain live so that the clock will continue running and the "CB" memory is maintained. Note that the switch can be turned from the "ACC" position to the "OFF" position or from the "OFF" position to the "ACC" position without a key. The key must be inserted to turn the ignition switch to engine run position ("IGN/ACC" position).

The purpose of this master "OFF" is to shut down most of the electrical circuits when the vehicle is not in use. This will protect the vehicle from power drains or fires due to electrical shorts when the vehicle is not in use. In addition, the vehicles electrical circuits can be shut off if a short is discovered by the driver while the vehicle is in use.

It is our opinion that this switch, which incorporates a master OFF is in compliance with FMVSS 108 S.4.5.5. We believe that it meets the intent of the standard of having the hazard flashers be operable when the engine is turned off and the key removed - (ACC position). We solicite the Agency's concurrence with this opinion.

This request is a follow-up to a telephone conversation of 4/21/80 between Mr. R. C. Hamilton and Mr. Z. Taylor Venson, who advised that we write this office for an interpretation. As mentioned by Mr. Hamilton, we are in dire need of a speedy reply as we are about to finalize this design for our new models.

Attached for your reference is a sketch illustrating the newly designed ignition switch assembly in question.

INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY

F. L. Krall, Manager Technical Legislation

ATTACH.

cc: GEORGE L. PARKER

MASTER OFF SWITCH

OFF - (MASTER) - MOST SYSTEMS OFF (HAZARD FLASHERS WILL NOT OPERATE) ACC - ENG OFF & ACC ON (HAZARD FLASHERS AND ACCESSORIES WILL OPERATE)

IGN/ACC - ENG ON & ACC ON (HAZARD FLASHERS AND ACCESSORIES WILL OPERATE) (Graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-7.4

DATE: May 14, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Al Twyford

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 4/21/92 from Al Twyford to Associate Administrator for Safety, Federal Highway Administration (OCC 7244)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of April 21, 1992, to the Federal Highway Administration, which has been forwarded to this agency for reply.

You wish to complain "about some makes of new cars that have two sets of headlights (4) which operate at the same time." If this agency plans to do nothing about it, you "plan to take this matter up with Congressmen and U.S. Senators."

You are not alone in your concern about headlamp glare created by new motor vehicles. Other citizens have brought the subject to the attention of Members of Congress. I enclose a copy of a recent letter from the Deputy Administrator of this agency to Senator Cohen of Maine which is representative of our views on this issue. You will see that a number of factors may be responsible for creating a perception of glare. We note that you have already been in touch with the Department of California Highway Patrol, and that California has no periodic motor vehicle inspection.

With respect to the specific comments in your letter, the agency does not "approve" specific headlamp designs. Standard No. 108 sets forth photometric performance requirements to be met on both the upper and lower beam, and does establish maximum limitations at some of the photometric test points. Further, in a four-headlamp system, the upper and lower beams may be provided by all headlamps. Headlamp manufacturers must ensure that their products meet these requirements, and certify that each headlamp complies by placing a "DOT" mark on the lamp. There is no requirement that a manufacturer obtain permission from this agency before introducing the lamps into the market.

We appreciate your concern.

Enclosure

April 16, 1992

The Honorable William S. Cohen United State Senate Washington, DC 20510-1901

Dear Senator Cohen:

Thank you for your letter requesting information on the quality of automobile headlamps. Our information should help you respond to a letter from Mr.

Lowell Spicer, of Brunswick, Maine, who wrote you about headlamp glare and other issues.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Under that authority, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued vehicle safety standards on a wide variety of subjects. One of these standards, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, "Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment," addresses the safety requirements for vehicle headlighting.

Two of FMVSS No. 108's requirements standardize the beam pattern and light intensity of headlamps. All new headlamps must meet these requirements, which have remained essentially unchanged since 1978. Halogen headlamps may appear much brighter, but they meet the same minimum and maximum output requirements as normal incandescent headlamps. They appear much brighter because of the color spectrum of their light, i.e., they emit light which appears whiter than the light emitted by incandescent headlamp. Another of FMVSS No. 108's requirements allows headlamps to be installed or "mounted" in a proper ground clearance and ramp angles for heavy duty and other vehicles. Because of their size and other characteristics, trucks often have headlamps that are mounted higher than other vehicles.

Our headlamp compliance tests for beam pattern and light intensity show, that when properly aimed, recent model-year headlamps generally fall well within the limits established for glare brightness. However, our tests do not account for the effect of different mounting heights or misaiming. Headlamp replacement and vehicle loading can alter headlamp aim and are often the cause of glare complaints.

Another aspect of recent model-year vehicles that could be contributing to glare is the improper use, misaiming or improper installation of auxiliary fog or driving lamps. These are regulated solely by state law.

The agency has found that factors such as reduced night vision capabilities as people age can adversely influence driving performance. Headlamp glare resistance reduces with driver age. According to research, the headlamp glare resistance of the human eye at age 20 is twice as good as it is for the age of 72. Contrast sensitivity is also an important factor in night vision, and it reduces dramatically, requiring more illumination to see objects as drivers age.

Concerning vehicle headlamps and their brightness due to misaim, States regulate headlamp aim in motor vehicle use and inspection laws. Maine has an annual motor vehicle inspection law. Should Mr. Spicer want to contact his State on the matter of headlamp aim inspection he should contact the following:

Administration of Laws Mr. G. William Diamond, Secretary of State Department of Secretary of State Nash School Station, #148 Augusta, ME 04333

Enforcement of Laws Mr. John Atwood, Commissioner

Department of Public Safety 336 Hospital Street Augusta, ME 04333.

I hope that we have provided enough information to help you answer Mr. Spicer's concerns.

Sincerely,

Frederick H. Grubbe

ID: 001402rls

ID: 23087.rbm

Kenneth Conaway
Adaptive Mobility , Inc.
7050 Guion Road
Indianapolis, IN 46268





Dear Mr. Conaway:

This responds to your request for a definition of the terms "load carrying capacity" and "available load capacity" as used in 49 CFR 595.7(e)(5). This section sets forth certain disclosure requirements related to vehicle modifications made for a person with a disability. Among the requirements set forth in this section is a statement of the load carrying capacity of the vehicle if it has been reduced by more than 100 kilograms (220 pounds). I regret the delay in responding.

By way of background, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administers a statute requiring that motor vehicles manufactured for sale in the United States or imported into the United States be manufactured so as to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle crashes and of deaths and injuries when crashes do occur. We refer to that statute as the Vehicle Safety Act. It is codified at 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.

One of the agency's functions under the Vehicle Safety Act is to issue and enforce Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs). These standards specify safety performance requirements for motor vehicles and/or items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers of motor vehicles must certify compliance with all applicable safety standards and permanently apply a label to each vehicle stating that the vehicle complies with all applicable FMVSSs and providing the vehicle gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR).

NHTSA's regulations impose certain requirements on those who alter in certain ways a vehicle that has been previously certified by a manufacturer but not yet sold in good faith for purposes other than resale. Alterers are considered to be manufacturers and are responsible for ensuring that the vehicle meets all applicable federal safety standards when delivered to the first retail customer. Alterers must determine whether those modifications could affect the vehicle manufacturer's certification of compliance and, if so, must apply a label adjacent to the original manufacturer's certification label stating that the vehicle, as altered, conforms with all applicable standards.

Those who modify a completed vehicle after the first retail sale are considered to be "modifiers." The Vehicle Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses from knowingly making inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment that is in compliance with any applicable federal motor vehicle safety standard. NHTSA may assess a civil penalty to enforce this provision. NHTSA may also, through regulation, exempt a person or business from the prohibition if it decides that an exemption is consistent with motor vehicle safety and the Vehicle Safety Act.

On February 27, 2001, NHTSA published a final rule setting forth a limited exemption from the make inoperative prohibition for businesses or individuals who modify vehicles for persons with disabilities (66 Federal Register 12638; Docket No. NHTSA-01-8667). This exemption is codified in 49 CFR Part 595, subpart C. Only portions of some Federal motor vehicle safety standards are covered by the exemption.

An underlying premise of Part 595 is that the individual for whom the modifications were made is unlikely to realize that the vehicle, as modified, may no longer meet all applicable FMVSS and may have a different load carrying capacity than listed in the owner's manual or on a tire placard. These vehicle changes could have an effect on the overall performance of the vehicle. Accordingly, we determined that vehicle modifiers who decide to take advantage of the exemption set forth in 49 CFR Part 595 should provide the customer with certain safety information and place a permanent label on the vehicle. The language for the label is set out in 49 CFR 595.7(d), and a detailed breakdown of the required information is contained in 49 CFR 595.7(e). One of the required pieces of information is the vehicle's load carrying capacity when it has been reduced by 100 kilograms (220 pounds) or more.

This requirement was intended to address circumstances in which the cargo carrying capacity has been reduced as a result of the modification. The term GVWR is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the value specified by the manufacturer as the loaded weight of a single vehicle." The GVWR informs vehicle owners how heavily the vehicle may be safely loaded. It also affects the vehicle's loading and other test conditions for the performance tests to ascertain whether the vehicle complies with applicable safety standards.

The only express regulatory limitation on the GVWR that manufacturers may assign to their vehicles is set forth in 49 CFR 567.4(g)(3), which provides that the assigned GVWR "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." "Unloaded vehicle weight" is defined in 49 CFR 571.3 as "the weight of a vehicle with maximum capacity of all fluids necessary for operation of the vehicle, but without cargo, occupants, or accessories that are ordinarily removed from the vehicle when they are not in use." Although the term "rated cargo load" is not defined by regulation, generally it is the GVWR of the vehicle minus the combined weight of the occupied designated seating positions (150 pounds times the total number of designated seating positions) and the unloaded vehicle weight.

Alterers must also determine whether their modifications affect the manufacturer's stated GVWR, gross axle weight rating (GAWR), and vehicle type. If such a change has been made, the alterer must specify the new GVWR, GAWR, or vehicle type in a manner consistent with the capability of the vehicle to comply with applicable standards and operate at higher weight rating and/or as a different type of vehicle. NHTSA expects both manufacturers and alterers to assign GVWR and GAWRs that reflect the manufacturer's or alterer's good-faith evaluation of how the vehicle's braking, load bearing items (including tires), suspension, steering, and drive train components will react to the vehicle's weight, size, cargo-carrying capacity and intended use.

Although the term "load carrying capacity" was not specifically defined in the February 2001 final rule, the term was intended to convey the same meaning as vehicle capacity weight, as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire selection and rims. "Vehicle capacity weight" is defined in that standard as the rated cargo and luggage load plus 68 kilograms (150 pounds) times the vehicle's designated seating capacity. Simply stated, a vehicle's load carrying capacity is its GVWR minus its unloaded weight. Likewise, the term "available load capacity" means that load carrying capacity that remains after the modifications are completed.

The number of designated seating positions used to determine the load carrying capacity may not be the same as the number of designated seating positions that were in the vehicle when the vehicle manufacturer or alterer assigned the GVWR. In many instances, one or more seating positions may be removed in order to make the modifications needed to accommodate a particular disability. When calculating the load carrying capacity under 49 CFR 595, if an original designated seating position is replaced by a wheelchair retention device that will be used to secure an occupied wheelchair, that position replaces the original designated seating position, i.e., 150 pounds must be allocated for that seating position but the weight of the removed seat may be deducted. If the original designated seating position is not replaced by another seat or a wheelchair retention device, it need not be considered as a designated seating position when calculating the load carrying capacity, and the weight of the removed seats, or other equipment, need not be considered.

The installation of a wheelchair retention device to restrain an unoccupied wheelchair as cargo does not qualify as a designated seating position, and a modifier would not be required to allocate a 150 pound capacity for that position. The vehicle modifier may include the weight of the wheelchair as part of the load carrying capacity. However, the modifier is required to tell the owner of the vehicle whether the weight of the wheelchair has been included when determining the reduced load carrying capacity and when specifying what available load capacity remains. Moreover, since wheelchair weights can vary by hundreds of pounds between manually operated and self-propelled models, a modifier must state the weight it used for any wheelchair included in its calculation of available load capacity. As discussed in the February 2001 final rule, the vehicle modifications contemplated by 49 CFR 595, subpart C are limited to modifications made for a specific customer. Accordingly, the customer should be able to provide the modifier with the weight of any wheelchairs that they expect the vehicle to transport.

Should you require any additional information or assistance, please contact Rebecca MacPherson, of my staff, (202) 366-2992 or at the address given above.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

ref:595
d.4/25/02

ID: nht81-3.46

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Newbuilt Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1981, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our response. You request permission to install a "Ballistic Cube 2000" in 500 motor vehicles over a two-year period for experimental purposes. The "Ballistic Cube 2000" is a protective cubicle made of Lexgard that is installed inside a vehicle. Lexgard, a bullet-resistant material, does not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 205. You urge us to grant your request on the basis that the data generated from such an experiment would be relevant to a rulemaking proceeding initiated by General Electric. (General Electric has petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 205 to permit the use of protective bullet-resistant shields in vehicles. The agency granted this petition on November 28, 1980.)

Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which applies to all glazing materials used in passenger cars, buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. All automotive glazing materials, including those used in the Ballistic Cube 2000, must conform to the standard's requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) provides in part that no person shall sell or manufacture for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect on the date of the item's manufacture. Thus, if you were to manufacture for sale or sell a Ballistic Cube 2000 made of Lexgard or any other glazing material that does not comply with Standard No. 205, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A). (Section 108(b)(5) establishes that section 108(a)(1)(A) does not apply when the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is intended solely for export and is so labeled.) Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation of Section 108.

We believe that installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles could possibly generate test data that could be valuable to the agency in the previously mentioned rulemaking proceeding. Unfortunately, however, NHTSA does not have the legal authority to grant you permission to make such an installation. NHTSA does not have statutory authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer from the requirements of Section 108(a)(1)(A) as it relates to motor vehicle equipment.

Section 123 of the Act authorizes the exemption of motor vehicles from the safety standards. However, it does not authorize the exemption of motor vehicle equipment from equipment standards. As noted above, Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard applicable to glazing. Consequently, no exemption can be granted under section 123 that would excuse manufacturing, offering for sale or selling noncomplying glazing as part of the vehicles you wish to modify and sell, since you would also be considered an equipment manufacturer.

While the agency cannot grant you an exemption, it is pursuing the request made by G.E. regarding Lexgard. The agency anticipates issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking before the end of this year. If a final rule permitting the use of Lexgard were issued, you could commence manufacturing and installation of the Ballistic Cubes upon the effective date of that rule.

Even if that rule is issued, there may be other standards which must be considered. As we understand your materials, the installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles may affect the compliance of those vehicles with FMVSS No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, and FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. If you were to install a Ballistic Cube in a new vehicle, i.e., one that had not yet been purchased for purposes other than resale, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) if the vehicle no longer complied with one of those standards. Of course, since Standard Nos. 103 and 201 are vehicle standards, you could apply for an exemption from those standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would prohibit you from installing the Ballistic Cube in a used vehicle if such installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Standards 103 and 201.

The agency cannot definitively state whether installation of your cube in a motor vehicle would affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standards Nos. 201 or 103. NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination. The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. It would probably be difficult for the agency to offer an opinion concerning your compliance with Standard 203 regardless of the information you supplied, since that standard involves a dynamic performance test.

Apart from the requirements imposed by section 108(a)(1)(A) regarding compliance with safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have general responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 et seq., such manufacturers must notify purchases about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.

I am sorry we are unable to accommodate you in this matter. However, since it is beyond our legal authority to do so, we have no choice but to make the decision set forth in this letter. Please contact this office if you have any questions.

SINCERELY,

NEWBUILT ENTERPRISES

May 26, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Gentlemen:

Our firm has developed a new concept in the manufacture of bullet-resistant vehicles. This concept is known as the Ballistic Cube 2000 with U. S. Patent Pending, Serial No. 253,108.

Our "cube" concept utilizes a highly bullet-resistant material manufactured by General Electric Company, called Lexgard.

We are enclosing some literature which more fully explains our application of this Lexgard material and our Ballistic Cube 2000 concept. We also have met with Carl C. Clark, PhD, Office of Vehicle Structures Research, and his committee regarding our new concept.

We presented a video film and demonstration to the committee on May 21, 1981. If you have any questions regarding the technical nature of our application, we are quite sure Dr. Clark would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

We hereby request your permission and an assurance of non-prosecution for any violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, for an experimental period of two years. We desire to fabricate and install our units for on-highway use to develop facts and test data to substantiate the advantages of our application.

As you are probably aware, General Electric Company has petitioned the Department for amendments in the current standards. This petition has been granted and is currently being reviewed. They have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amend MVSS No. 205 by adapting the following new glazing category:

"Item IIX: Materials conforming to the requirements of Test Numbers 2, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 32 of ANSZ26.1 may be used as a bullet-resisting shield at levels requisite for driver visibility. The phrase "bullet-resisting shield" for the purposes of this standard means a transparent barrier mounted completely inside the vehicle, behind and separated from glazing materials that independently comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205. The bullet-resisting shield shall be conveniently removable for cleaning and replacement without disturbing the (exterior-glass) glazing material."

Our vehicle production during this two year experimental period is estimated as follows: Number of Units Description 100 Armored Transport Vehicles (Money Carriers) 50 Law Enforcement Transports (Buses, Vans) 150 Private Automobiles 150 Motor Coaches - Public Transportation 50 Rescue Units - Law Enforcement

The only area in which our concept does not comply with the current Standard No. 205 is that ANS Z26 does not permit the use of Lexgard BR in the windshield area. It does permit the use of bullet-resistant glass. Lexgard provides far better protection than BR glass. The windshield can also be removed quickly in case of an emergency.

Some of the advantages of our concept are as follows:

- Vehicle fuel economy is considerably improved by weight reductions in the glazing materials and in the required support and framing members. Lexgard is one-third the weight of BR glass.

- Lexgard BR qualifies as both an AS-10 and AS-11 glazing material under the requirements defined in the current standard, ANS Z26.1-1966.

- Unlike other bullet-resisting materials, Lexgard BR does not spall under impact.

- Lexgard BR provides a greater level of overall protection from ballistic impacts than other equivalently rated bullet-resisting products.

- The vehicles we are proposing to use are primarily operated by trained, skilled, professional drivers.

After reviewing the information, we respectfully request your favorable response to our request.

Should you have any further questions or require additional information, please contact us.

Rickey L. Newmayer President

Jerry A. Corbett Vice-President

Literature Omitted

ID: nht76-1.2

DATE: 06/11/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; S. P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: British Leyland Motors Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of March 29, 1976, concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 101, Control Location, Identification, and Illumination, for identification of the headlamps and taillamps control.

Your letter presented two symbols specified by the International Standards Organization as alternatives for identification of the master lighting switch. One of these appears in Column 4 of Table 1 of the standard and the other does not appear anywhere in the table. The headlamps and taillamps control (master lighting switch) is required by S4.2.1 to be identified with the word "Lights". The manufacturer may supplement this identification with a symbol, but only with a symbol that appears in Column 3 or Column 4 of Table 1. In issuing the amendment to the standard published July 29, 1975 (40 FR 31770, copy enclosed), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered both ISO symbols and decided not to permit the one that does not appear in the table.

YOURS TRULY,

British Leyland Motors Inc.

March 29, 1976

Office of General Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U. S. Department of Transportation

RE: FMVSS 101

To commonize on switches used for master lighting controls worldwide, one of the Leyland Cars divisions would like to use the ISO light bulb symbol for master lighting switch.

We do not find this alternative provided in any recent proposals issued by NHTSA and we ask:

a) if you have considered this alternative symbol

b) if you have decided not to allow its use

c) would you consider its use.

Dianne Black Liaison Engineer

(Graphics omitted)

ID: nht90-4.31

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: October 2, 1990

FROM: Mark G. Southern

TO: Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re Child car restraints

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1-4-91 to Mark G. Southern from Paul Jackson Rice (A37; Std. 213)

TEXT:

Recently I contacted Mr. George Shifflett in your office regarding federal and state safety requirements for child car restraints. I have reviewed FMVSS No. 213, and would like to obtain further clarification as to whether it is applicable to the device that I have designed. I have enclosed sketches of my devise for your review.

Specifically my question relates to FMVSS No. 213 S5.3.1 which reads as follows:

Each (add-on) child restraint system shall have no means designed for attaching the system to vehicle seat cushion or vehicle seat back and component (except belts) that is designed to be inserted between the vehicle seat cushion and vehicle seat back. (53 F.R. 1783-January 22, 1988. Effective: January, 22, 1988)

My child safety devise provides additional restraint for children from the ages of two (2) to seven (7) years old; however it is not the primary restraint. The vehicles existing seat belt is the primary restraint.

I am requesting an interpretation as to whether it is permissible for my devise to attach to the seat back as shown in the attached diagrams.

My patent council has recommended that I request confidentiality from anyone, with whom I show the design. I would like to request confidentiality in this matter and that your office not publish or release any information with respect to my design, with out my approval.

If you have any questions feel free to contact me at work (206) 389-5055 or at home (206) 838-4530.

ID: 9503

Mr. Derrick Barker
John Martin Designs
1 Clifton St.
Stourbridge, West Midlands
DY8 3XR

Dear Mr. Barker:

This responds to your letter concerning the buckle release requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems." I apologize for the delay in responding.

You asked for the "tensile load requirements for the buckle and tongue." There is no specific requirement in Standard 213 for the tensile force that a child restraint buckle must withstand. Instead, the buckle must maintain its integrity when the child restraint is subjected to a simulated frontal impact at 30 mph with either a six-month-old (17 pounds (lbs.)) or three-year-old (33 lbs.) sized dummy restrained in the car seat. At the conclusion of the simulated impact, the force required to depress the latch button to release the buckle is measured and must be 16 lbs. or less.

You also asked for a copy of Procedure D of the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard D756-78. Section S5.4.2 of FMVSS No. 213 sets forth those requirements by making reference to section S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 209. which, in turn, leads to the reference to Procedure D of ASTM D756-78. The material you requested is enclosed.

In addition, you asked for a list of laboratories that test child safety seats and buckles. NHTSA does not endorse particular test laboratories. However, I can provide you with a list of laboratories we are aware of that conduct child restraint compliance tests. There may be other laboratories that can test child safety seats and buckles.

Please contact Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures ref:213 d:4/8/94

ID: 2111y

AIR MAIL

Mr. S. Watanabe, Manager Automotive Lighting Engineering Control Dept. Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. 2-9-l3, Nakameguro, Meguro-Ku Tokyo l53, Japan

Japan FAX 03-792-00007

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

This is in reply to your FAX of September 14, l989, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. l08, with respect to a vehicle headlamp aiming device (VHAD), as shown in the drawing attached to your letter.

You have two questions:

"1) Does a VHAD without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l(v)?"

Paragraph S7.7.5.2(a)(v) states that "Means shall be provided in the VHAD for compensating for deviations in floor slope not less than 1.2 degrees from the horizontal that would affect the correct positioning of the headlamp for vertical aim." If a VHAD is "without a function which compensates the deviation of floor slope" it would not satisfy Standard No. l08.

"2) This Head Lamp is designed to be aimed vertically by means of observing only one spirit level placed on the movable reflector, as shown in the drawing. Does this structure of VHAD satisfy FMVSS No. l08 S7.7.5.2(a)(l)(v)?"

The answer is yes, if observation of the simple spirit level is coordinated with an off-vehicle measurement of floor slope. As located, the spirit level with the range of +/- 1.2 degree range will allow aim of the headlamp, even though the vehicle may not be level, and will compensate for floor slopes of up to 1.2 degrees, thus fulfilling the requirement that there be compensatory means when the vehicle upon which the headlamp is mounted is not resting upon level ground.

I hope that this answers your questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:l08 d:ll/6/89