ID: 9315

Mr. Dan Neaga and Ms. Dianna Sabo
Johnson Controls, Inc.
49200 Halyard Dr.
P.O. Box 8010
Plymouth, MI 48170

Dear Mr. Neaga and Ms. Sabo:

This responds to your letter asking about a requirement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, "Child Restraint Systems," for built-in child restraints that use "the same seat back surface as the adult occupant." I apologize for the delay in responding.

Before I begin, I would like to reference a May 26, 1994 telephone call to you from Ms. Deirdre Fujita of my staff, about your letter's statement that the information you sent us is confidential. Ms. Fujita explained that letters requesting interpretations of our FMVSSs are public information, but suggested that we could return your sketches to you and make publicly available only your cover letter. You agreed this would satisfy your concerns about not disclosing your design concepts. Accordingly, Ms. Fujita has mailed your sketches to you.

By way of background, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, the Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts set forth in your letter.

You ask if your understanding is correct that "lateral support of the side of the child's torso is not required by FMVSS 213." The answer is yes. The torso impact protection requirement of S5.2.2.1(b) of Standard 213 specifies requirements for "[e]ach system surface provided for support

of the side of the child's torso" (emphasis added). The preamble for the final rule adopting S5.2.2.1(b) explains: "The specifications do not require manufacturers to incorporate side supports in their restraints, they only regulate the surfaces that the manufacturer decides to provide so that they distribute crash forces over the child's torso." 44 FR 72131, 72135; December 13, 1979.

Please note that NHTSA determines independently from the manufacturer whether a particular surface is provided for side support. The determination is based on factors such as the design and intended use of the restraint, and the advertising literature for the restraint. Accordingly, a manufacturer cannot avoid complying with S5.2.2.1(b) simply by asserting that a side surface was not provided for side support. However, with regard to a built-in restraint such as yours that uses the same seat back surface as the adult occupant and where "no lateral support other than the one offered to the adult occupant is provided," it does not appear that the child restraint incorporates side supports subject to S5.2.2.1(b).

If you have any questions, please call Ms. Fujita at (202) 366-2992. Again, my apologies for the delay in responding.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213 d:6/9/94

ID: Davis_8129-2

Douglas Davis, Vice President
Davis Aircraft Products Co. , Inc.
1150 Walnut Avenue
Bohemia, NY 11716-0525




Dear Mr. Davis:

This responds to your letter in which you ask about the load requirements under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. In your letter you suggest that there is an "overtest" condition with regard to one of the upper torso restraint components under the agencys test procedure (TP-209-05, January 17, 2003). As explained below, FMVSS No. 209 requires that a D-ring withstand the required force in the context of the test procedure specified in the standard, which is reflected in TP-209-05. As such, the procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 does not result in an "overtest".

FMVSS No. 209 specifies requirements for seat belt assemblies to ensure that such assemblies provide occupants with a minimum level of protection in a crash. As noted in your letter, S4.4 of the standard establishes the performance requirements for seat belt assemblies. S4.4(b)(2) requires structural components in an upper torso restraint to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N when tested in accordance with S5.3(b) of the standard. The S5.3 test procedure applicable to S4.4(b)(2) is illustrated in Figure 10 of the laboratory test procedure, TP-209-05 (copy enclosed). We note that a revised version of the test procedure has been issued, TP-209-05 (August 22, 2005), but that no revisions have been made to Figure 10.

In your letter, you stated that under the test procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 Figure 10, a D-ring would experience a resultant force greater than 6,672 N. You stated that this resultant force created "an over test condition".

We disagree that the test procedure illustrated in TP-209-05 results in "an over test condition". As indicated above, S4.4(b) specifies that, with certain exceptions not relevant to your question, the components of a Type 2 seat belt assembly must meet specified requirements "when tested by the procedure specified in S5.3(b)". (Emphasis added. ) While S4.4(b) requires certain components (including a D-ring) in the upper torso restraint to withstand a force of not less than 6,672 N, the procedure with respect to how that force is applied is specified in S5.3(b).

S5.3(b)(2) specifies that the 6,672 N force is applied as a tensile force in the manner prescribed in S5.3(b)(1). Through referencing S5.3(a)(2), S5.3(b)(1) specifies that the assemblys attaching bolts are attached to an anchorage bar in a manner that results in the angle nearest to 90 degrees between webbing and attachment hardware, except that eye-bolts are vertical. This procedure is represented in Figure 10 of TP-209-05.

We recognize that the resultant force exerted on a D-ring is greater than the tensile force applied to the seat belt assembly. However, S4.4(b)s performance requirement is written in the context of a specified test procedure for the entire seat belt assembly. The higher force experienced by a D-ring is the result of the specified test procedure. As such, the illustrated test procedure does not result in an "overtest".

If you have any additional questions please contact Mr. Chris Calamita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:209
d.12/8/05

ID: 18764-1.pja

Mr. Paul Irby
President
Innovative Trailers, Inc.
714 Falvey
Texarkana, TX 75501

Dear Mr. Irby:

This responds to your letter requesting an interpretation of whether the chip trailers your company manufactures would be excluded from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) rear impact protection (underride guard) regulations. Although your letter was labeled and written as a petition for rulemaking, in a telephone conversation you told Mr. Michael Huntley in our Office of Safety Performance Standards that your intention was to get an interpretation of whether your trailers meet the definition of an excluded special purpose vehicle. Accordingly, your letter was forwarded to this office for a legal interpretation. As explained below, these trailers are not excluded as special purpose vehicles, so an underride guard complying with our regulations would have to be supplied.

These trailers are essentially van-type trailers that carry wood chips. They are unloaded by driving the tractor and trailer onto a long platform that is then hydraulically tilted at an angle of about 60 degrees so that the wood chips slide out the rear of the trailer. In order to support the great weight of the trailer, its load, and the tractor in the tilted position, all of your trailers have a very rigid rear guard which you state mates with some sort of handling equipment on the platform. The guard's horizontal member is suspended below the rear of the trailer by two pieces of heavy steel plate welded perpendicularly to the back of the trailer. These plates are located a few feet outboard of the trailer centerline and oriented in a vertical plane parallel to the trailer sides. The vertical rear surface of the plates forms the rear extremity of the trailer and project's a few inches rearward of the guard. You explain that most of your trailers are excluded wheels-back vehicles, but that a small number (5%) of your trailers have moveable undercarriages, and therefore cannot qualify as wheels-back vehicles. You state that you do not know how to design a guard that meets the energy absorption requirements of S5.2.2 of Standard No. 223, while providing sufficient rigidity to meet the handling requirements of the offloading ramps.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 224, Rear impact protection, requires most trailers and semitrailers weighing over 10,000 pounds to be fitted at the rear with a rear impact (underride) guard meeting the requirements of Standard No. 223, Rear impact guards (49 CFR 571.223 and 571.224, published on January 24, 1996 at 61 FR 2004). However, certain kinds of vehicles are excluded. The only excluded categories that are relevant for the purposes of this letter are wheels-back vehicles and special purpose vehicles.

The analysis in your letter is correct regarding the wheels-back status of your trailers. Wheels-back vehicles, excluded by S3 of FMVSS No. 224, are defined in S4 as a "trailer or semitrailer whose rearmost axle is permanently fixed and is located such that the rearmost surface of [the tire] on that axle is not more than 305 mm forward of the transverse vertical plane tangent to the rear extremity of the vehicle." The threshold issue is whether the rear wheels are permanently fixed. If the rear surface of the rear wheels is within 305 mm of the trailer rear extremity, you are correct in assuming that most of your trailers with fixed rear wheels are excluded. However, your trailers with rear tandems that are not permanently fixed are not excluded as wheels-back.

We turn to the question of whether the wood chip trailers with adjustable undercarriages are excluded as special purpose vehicles. A special purpose vehicle is defined in S4 of FMVSS No. 224 as "a trailer or semitrailer having work-performing equipment that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in or moves through the area that could be occupied by the horizontal member of the rear underride guard, as defined by S5.1.1 through S5.1.3."⁽¹⁾ The guard is the only part of your trailer that, while the vehicle is in transit, resides in the area that could be occupied by the rear underride guard. Therefore, it would have to be considered work-performing equipment for the trailer to be excluded.

There is no definition in the standard for "work-performing equipment." In determining the meaning of regulatory language, the first place the agency looks is the plain meaning of the words. In the context which is relevant to this safety standard, "work" is defined as "the transfer of energy from one physical system to another; especially, the transfer of energy to a body by the application of force . . ." "Perform" is defined as "to begin and carry through to completion; do." American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1971. Taken together, NHTSA interprets the words "work-performing" to mean that the equipment must actively perform its function, and that the function must involve exerting force or moving something else. The guard on your chip trailers does not perform work in this sense. Its function is to connect to the unloading equipment and possibly to support the tilted trailer while unloading. Therefore, the guard is not work-performing equipment, and the bottom dump trailer does not meet the definition of a special purpose vehicle. An underride guard would have to be provided on this vehicle.

We cannot provide a specific opinion on how your trailer should be redesigned to accommodate a guard. We note, however, that the standard specifies only the guard's horizontal member position, and therefore there is a great deal of flexibility in how you attach the guard to the trailer, so long as the strength and energy absorption requirements are met. There is no requirement that the guard be integrated with or suspended from the plates at the rear. We noticed in your photos that the plates comprise the rear extremity of the trailer (and therefore would comprise the lower extremity when the trailer is tilted). We also noticed that the rear edge of the plates show more wear than the guard. These two observations cause us to wonder whether it is actually the guard, or the plates that the guard is suspended from, that support the trailer when it is tilted. If it is the plates themselves that support the vehicle, you might be able to keep the rigid plates and still have a compliant guard if you mount the guard so that it acts independently from the rigid plates. If necessary, you could mount the guard up to 305 mm forward of the rear edge of the plates. These observations are for your consideration, and are not intended as an endorsement of a particular solution. It is you, as the vehicle manufacturer, who is responsible for the vehicle's compliance with the standard.

If you have difficulty meeting these requirements, the agency would consider a petition for temporary exemption from Standard No. 224. Under one of our regulations (49 CFR Part 555), vehicle manufacturers may apply for a temporary exemption from the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Under Sec. 555.6(a), a manufacturer whose yearly production is not more than 10,000 units may ask for an exemption of up to three years on the basis that compliance would cause it substantial economic hardship and that it has attempted in good faith to comply with the standard from which it has asked to be excused. We have enclosed a copy of Part 555 for your information. We have also enclosed a copy of our regulations relating to the protection of confidential business information. Most of the trailer manufacturers submitting petitions for temporary exemption have requested that their financial information remain confidential.

Please note Part 555 requires the agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register seeking public comment on each exemption petition before a decision can be made on such a request, and then publish a second notice either granting or denying the petition. This process normally takes three to four months from the date of submittal.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
d.7/17/98
ref:224

1. Note that this definition, as quoted, reflects an amendment made in response to petitions for reconsideration of the final rule. See 63 F.R. 3654 (January 26, 1998).

ID: nht87-2.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/26/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Laurie J. Schonauer -- Bethell Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Ms. Laurie J. Schonauer Bethell Company P.O. Box 191 Colton, CA 92324-0087

Your letter of May 14, 1987, addressed to the office of Vehicle Safety Standards, was referred to me for reply. Along with your letter, you sent marketing literature, and samples of your product, a device you are marketing under the name "Insta-cone." Yo ur literature indicates your intention to market this device principally as an emergency traffic warning device. The product is made of bright orange corrugated paper and has three connected triangular faces. You shipped your product folded along the leg s of the triangles, and packaged in a clear paper wrapper. A user unfolds your device, and connects tabs and slots along the legs of the triangles to form a pyramid. At the base of two triangles that form the pyramid is a long tab with covered adhesive s trips. According to your literature, a user assembles your product, uncovers the adhesive, and secures it to the ground with these adhesive taps. Buried in one leg of the triangle is a small nail for securing the product in ground where the adhesive will not take hold.

You ask the questions. The first is whether this agency will send you a letter stating that your product may he used to indicate the presence of a disabled passenger vehicle. The second question is whether this agency will send you a "statement. . .that it is a good idea for passenger vehicles to have a first aid kit, (your product), or even flares in the trunk in case of an accident or breakdown." The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Department of Transportation, and has authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA does no t approve nor certify motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, or endorse and commercial product. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer must certify that its product meets agency safety standards, or other applicable standards. Periodically, NHTSA tests whether vehicles or equipment comply with these standards, and may investigate alleged safety-related product defects.

Standard 125, Warning Devices, sets uniform design specifications for devices used to warn approaching traffic of the presence of a disabled vehicle. The Standard applies to any such device without a self-contained energy source that is designed to be ca rried in motor vehicles and erected when needed to warn approaching traffic. Your product is an item of motor vehicle equipment, and falls under this Standard. Thus, the "Insta-Cone" must meet the requirements of Standard 125, such as those on configurat ion, color, and selectivity. The Vehicle Safety Act provides for a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of a safety standard and a maximum penalty of $800,000 for a series of violations. In addition, the Vehicle Safety Act requires manufacturers to remedy their products if they fail to comply with all applicable safety standards. In answer to your first question, you do not need a letter from this agency to market your device as motor vehicle equipment for use to warn approaching traffic of the pr esence of a stopped vehicle, so long as your device meets FMVSS 125 requirements. However, NHTSA's preliminary review of your product indicates that the "Insta-cone" may not comply with the color, reflectivity, luminance, stability, and durability requir ements of Standard 125. If your product fails to meet these or other Standard 125 requirements, you cannot legally market and sell it as a warning device.

As I stated earlier in this letter, this agency does not endorse commercial products. In answer to your second question, NHTSA must decline to supply you with the kind of statement you suggest. Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure Standard No. 125 - omitted

May 14, 1987

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Safety Cones

As per Captain Wood of the California Highway Patrol in Sacramento, I am sending a sample and general information about a new safety cone.

It is my understanding that an item of this nature does not need approval. I have a couple reasons for writing this letter. First, is it possible to get a letter from you stating that these cones may be used on the shoulder to indicate the presence of a disabled passenger vehicle as shown in the illustration on the package. Second, in order for us to try to promote safety, can we get a statement from the Safety Administration that it is a good idea for passenger vehicles to have a first aid kit, safety cones, or even flares in the trunk in case of an accident or breakdown?

To give you an idea of the massive programs being set up to help promote safety and our disabled citizens, I am forwarding copies of letters sent that will more explain what we are doing. If I could get some support from this Administration we can possib ly help save some lives, as well as promote workshops for the disabled. Please contact me at your earliest convenience or write. We will be starting this program on July 1st, 1987.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Bethell Co.

Laurie J. Schonauer

LJS/kb Enclosures cc: Easter Seal Society/ CBS News / California Highway Patrol PRODUCTION DESCRIPTION "Insta-Cone" Emergency Traffic Safety Cones are a new, low cost, 12" safety cone made of ridged corrugated cardboard. Three bright fluorescent cones are neatly shrink - wrapped together for easy storage in the trunk of a passenger vehicle or behind the seat, out of the way until you need it.

*Visible: Eye catching reflective surface gets attention. *Durable: Withstand high winds because of the sturdy 3 dimension design and six pressure sensitive adhesive tabs. *Convenient: Instantly snaps together for quick use. November 18, 1986

File No.: 62.A218.A6078

Laurie J. Schonauer Bethall Company P.O. Box 191 Colton, CA 92324-0087

Dear Ms. Schonauer:

The pyramidal foldable Insta-Cones described in the attachments to your letter of October 31, 1986, are a type of device that does not require approval by this Department. They may be faced on the shoulder to indicate the presence of a disabled passenger vehicle as shown in the illustration on the package. The Insta-Cones are not a legal substitute for the triangular emergency reflectors that are required to be carried by trucks, truck tractors, and travel trailers that are 80 or more inches wide. Those reflectors must meet the regulations of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 125, copy enclosed. Further information on that standard may be obtained from:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Vehicle Safety Standards 470 Seventh Street, SW Washington, DC 20590

We hope this information will be helpful to you. The samples you sent for our review are being returned with this letter. Very truly yours,

L. P. WOOD, Captain Commander Commercial and Technical Services Section

Enclosures April 28, 1987

Ms. Laurie J. Schonauer Bethell Company P.O. BOX 191 Colton, CA 92324-0087

Dear Laurie,

Thank you for your decision to utilize the Easter Seal Rehabilitation Workshop for assembly and packaging of the INSTA-CONE Safety Cone and Auto-Pack. We look forward to accomplishing your work with quality and efficiency in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline M. Peel Executive Director

JMP/cb

cc: Robert LaPage Plant Manager

PROPOSAL TO CBS/KNX NEWS RADIO (omitted)

ID: 86-5.12

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/04/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood for Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. Binichi Doi

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Binichi Doi NSK Representative Office P.O. Box 1507 Ann Arbor, MI 18106

Dear Mr. Doi:

Thank you for your letters concerning the automatic safety belt warning requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You explained in your letters and in conversations with Stephen Oesch of my staff that NSK-Warner is developing a motorized automatic belt system that would be equipped with an emergency release buckle. You also plan to provide voluntarily a manual lap belt with the system. I regret the delay in our response and hope the following discussion answers your questions.

You first asked whether you can use an automatic belt warning system for your motorized belt system which would activate an audible signal under the following conditions: (1) the vehicle ignition is moved to the "on" or "start" position (2) the motorized automatic belt is not fastened and (3) the motorized belt has not reached its locked protective position. As explained below, such a system is permissible, but is not required by the standard.

S4.5.3 of the standard sets forth the requirements for automatic belt systems. S4.5.3.3(b) requires a motorized automatic belt system to have a warning system that sounds an audible signal for between 4 and 8 seconds if the automatic belt latchplate is not fastened or the emergency release is activated and the ignition is in the "on" or "start" position. However, S4.5.3.3(b) does not require the audible signal to be activated until a motorized belt has reached its locked protective mode. Your system would activate the audible signal while the motorized belt is moving to its locked position and it would sound again once it has reached its locked position. Thus, NSK is voluntarily providing a warning that is not required by the standard. As stated in the preamble to the November 6, 1985 notice (50 FR 16063) adopting the new warning system requirements for automatic safety belts, a manufacturer is free to provide additional features as long as the features required by the standard still continue to comply with all the applicable performance requirements. Thus, as long as the warning system provides the warning required by S4.5.3.3(b), NSK may voluntarily provide additional warnings as well.

You also said that NSK is planning to provide an automatic belt warning system for both the driver's and right front passenger's seating position. S4.5.3.3(b) requires an automatic belt warning system only at the left front designated seating position. Thus, the agency would consider the passenger side warning system as a voluntary system, which you may install as long as the driver'a warning system will continue to meet all applicable requirements.

You also asked several questions about when and how long the audible and light warning are to be activated. Specifically you asked whether the warnings must be reactivated when the tongue of an emergency release buckle (referred to as an ERB in your letter) is inserted into the latch mechanism and then removed again within a few seconds. You also asked if the warnings can be de-activated by insertion of the tongue of the emergency release buckle before expiration of the 4-8 seconds specification for the audible warning and the 60 second specification for activation of the warning light. As explained below, if the emergency release buckle has been fastened and then unfastened after a few seconds, the warning does not have to be re-activated until after the ignition switch has been turned "off" and then turned again to the "on" or "start" position. Also if the warning begins to activate and then the emergency release buckle is fastened, the warning may immediately be cancelled and thus does not have to be activated for the full time period specified in the standard.

S4.5.3.3(b) provides that the audible warning and the warning light are to be activated only under certain conditions. Thus, the standard provides that the warnings are to be activated when condition A (the ignition switch is in the "on" or "start" position) exists simultaneously with one of the other conditions, such as condition B (the emergency release buckle not being fastened). Thus, if the emergency release buckle is unfastened and, at the same time, the ignition is in the "on" or "start" position, the warnings must activate. However, if the ignition is not in the "on" or "start" position and the emergency buckle is released, then the warnings do not have to be activated. The agency has previously said, such as in a June 17, 1981 letter to Chrysler, that the warning is not to activate if the safety belt is buckled. Thus, the warning may be cancelled once the emergency release buckle is fastened.

Again, I regret the delay in our response. If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

March 10, 1986

NHTSA Room 5219 400 Seventh Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20590

Stephen L. Oesch Deputy Assistant Chief Counsel For Rulemaking

Subject: Questions Regarding FMVSS 208, 4.5.3.3(b).

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It was nice meeting with you the other day although I walked into your office without prior notice.

Below is a few questions NSK-Warner would like to ask your office, in addition to the previous request for interpretation of rules stated in my letter of February 4, 1986.

1. When conditions A and B exist simultaneously the audible and light warnings are activated. Under the existance of such conditions (say for two seconds), when a tongue of ERB is inserted into and removed from a buckle within a short time.

a) Are warnings (or one of two types of warning) required to be re-activated?

b) Are warnings required for the initially set time, that is, 4-8 seconds for audio-warning and not less than 60 seconds for light-warning after a tongue is inserted into and removed from a buckle during the initial warning activation time periods?

In other words, are the warning(s) needs to be re-activated for a certain length of time after a tongue is inserted into a buckle (this action would eliminate both types of warning) and removed immediately afterward as long as this sequence of events occurs within 4-8 seconds and not less than 60 seconds of initial activation of warnings?

Yet in other words, can the warnings be de-activated before expiration of 4-8 seconds and not less than 60 seconds by insertion of a tongue, for example, and not required to be reactivated at all until ignition switch is turned off once and turned on again?

2. NSK-Warner is considering the implementation of 'Condition B Warning' on the passenger side, also.

In such case, depending on the timing of anchor point reaching protected-mode at anchor-point, audible warning could last for a total of 16 seconds, 8 seconds on drivers side and 8 seconds on passenger side. Does this cause any rule-related problem?

I only hope that above questions sufficiently are clearly stated so that we can receive your kind consideration and response.

Very truly yours,

Binichi Doi NSK Representative

BD/mt

P.S. We would appreciate it if you could combine above with our previous set of questions for your consideration.

ID: 1984-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/03/84

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: MMC Services Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President MMC Services Inc. Suite 1960 3000 Town Center Southfield, Michigan 48075

Dear Mr. Kano:

This responds to your letter of April 13, 1984, addressed to Mr. Roman Brooks of NHTSA's Office of Enforcement. You stated that you were submitting the letter "to assure that the Agency and Mitsubishi agree in writing as we did verbally" concerning the compliance of a proposed electronic odometer design with Standard No. 101, Controls and Displays. You also stated that lead time dictates an imminent decision on design plans, that the agency's "early approval/response" to your selected solution is greatly appreciated, and that if you do not hear to the contrary within 30 days, you will assume the agency's concurrence. As discussed below, your letter indicates a serious misunderstanding of both Federal statutory requirements and NHTSA policies and procedures. Moreover, your apparent interpretation of Standard No. 101 is incorrect.

First, NHTSA does not grant approval of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to assure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements.

NHTSA is willing to provide interpretations and opinions in response to reasonable requests. However, such interpretations and opinions are only provided in writing and only by NHTSA's Chief Counsel. The agency does not consider itself bound by verbal statements made by agency employees or by interpretations made by persons other than the Chief Counsel.

Moreover, NHTSA does not offer interpretations by remaining silent in response to letters which assert that such silence is assumed to be concurrence. The agency considers the inclusion of such purported conditions to be inappropriate and does not consider itself bound by them.

The agency regrets if Mr. Brooks' conversation contributed to the misunderstandings apparent in your letter. In the future, questions of interpretation should be addressed in writing to the Chief Counsel.

Your question of interpretation concerns a proposed design for an electronic odometer which would display either miles or kilometers. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

According to your letter, the vehicle's speedometer would display, at the option of the driver, in either miles per hour or kilometers per hour. The selected unit of measure would he identified by a lighted display reading either "MPH" or "Km/h". The digits of the odometer would correspond to the units of measure selected for the speedometer, but the odometer itself would not identify its units of measure. As discussed below, such a design would not meet the requirements of Standard No. 101, since that standard requires an odometer that indicates kilometers to be identified by "KILOMETERS" or "km".

Section S5 of Standard No. 101 requires that "each passenger car, multipurpose passenger vehicle and truck or bus less than 10,000 pounds GVWR with any display listed in S5.1 or in column 1 of Table 2, shall meet the requirements of this standard for the location, identification, and illumination of such control or display." Odometers are one of the displays listed in column 1 of Table 2.

Section S5.2.f references the requirements of Table 2. Footnote 3 of Table 2 specifies the following requirement for odometers:

If the odometer indicates kilometers, then "KILOMETERS" or "km" shall appear, otherwise no identification is required.

Section S5.2.3 further provides that "the identification required or permitted by this section shall be placed on or adjacent to the display that it identifies.

Standard No. 101 thus requires odometers indicating kilometers to be identified by "KILOMETERS" or "km", and such identification must be placed on or adjacent to the odometer. Since your proposed design would indicate kilometers, it would be necessary to identify its units of measure according to these requirements.

I would note that these requirements cannot be met merely by placing the odometer adjacent to the speedometer. While the identification of the selected units of measure for the speedometer could be placed adjacent to both the speedometer and odometer, the identification requirements are different for the two displays. Table 2 requires that a speedometer graduated in miles per hour and kilometers per hour be identified by "MPH and km/h" in any combination of upper or lower case letters. As discussed above, the requirement for odometers is "KILOMETERS" or "km". A single identification of units of measure cannot meet these requirements simultaneously.

Please note that this opinion is limited to the specific issue raised by your letter and does not consider whether the proposed design would otherwise meet the requirements of Standard No. 101.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 13, 1984

Mr. Roman Brooks Enforcement Operating Systems and Occupant Protection National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Mr. Brooks:

Relevant to our conversation on odometer/speedometer nomenclature during the third week of March, Mitsubishi Motors Corporation hereby submits the letter you suggested in order to assure that the Agency and Mitsubishi agree in writing as we did verbally.

Description

MMC intends to introduce a future model instrument panel which will have an electronic digital speedometer, and electronic digital conventional and trip odometers.

As in the 1983 model Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Saporro, built by Mitsubishi and sold in the U.S., the digital electronic speedometer can be displayed at the option of the driver either in MPH or Km/h, and the selected unit is shown with a lighted display. In those vehicles the odometers (conventional and trip) are mechanical units which only display miles and no units accompany the odometer as FMVSS 101 allows.

However, the new model MMC intends to introduce will be equipped also with electronic odometers (conventional and trip). Because of the versatility of electronics, MMC intends to display the digits of the odometers also in the units (either miles or Km) which correspond to the units the driver has selected for the speedometer (either MPH or Km/h). An explanation will be put in the owners Manual, as you suggested, that the odometers will display the corresponding miles or Km to the lighted display at the speedometer which the driver has selected (either MPH or Km/h), but the odometer itself will not show its units.

Furthermore, the new odometer will be in comparable compliance with Title IV insofar as accuracy, difficulty to alter mileage, etc.

Request

Since lead time for this new model dictates an imminent decision on how to handle the nomenclature, your early approval/response to our selected solution is greatly appreciated.

If we do not hear to the contrary within 30 days of the date of this letter, we will assume your concurrence.

Thank you in advance for your attention to our request.

Very truly yours,

MMC SERVICES, INC. Masakatsu Kano Executive Vice President /sg cc: Messrs. A. H. Neill J. E. Glancy

ID: nht79-1.22

DATE: 12/19/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Sheller-Globe Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

December 19, 1979

NOA-30

Mr. R. M. Premo Director, Vehicle Safety Activities Sheller-Globe Corporation 3555 St. Johns Road Lima, Ohio 45804

Dear Mr. Premo:

This responds to your November 12, 1979, letter asking whether several joints in your school bus must comply with Standard No. 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength. All of the joints concern what you have called maintenance access panels.

As you are aware, the agency has discovered through its compliance testing that most school bus manufacturers have taken advantage of the maintenance access panel exemption from the standard. The result is that many joints in school buses are not as secure as they should be and, during an accident, might result in injury to children being transported in those buses. The agency is very concerned about this practice and is considering methods of limiting the maintenance access panel exemption.

Your letter asks the agency to consider the fact that the panels whose joints you are questioning are plastic and not metal. Therefore, you conclude that the edges are not sharp, and even if the panels come unfastened in an accident, their edges will not be likely to injure the occupants of your buses.

The standard establishes joint strength tests that apply uniformly to all joints regardless of the material used in the panel. While it may be true that plastic panels are less likely to injure occupants of buses when a panel becomes disconnected during an accident, Standard No. 221 addresses other safety areas beyond preventing the sharp edges of panels from cutting occupants. Joint strength is necessary for the vehicle integrity during accidents. This is as important as preventing cutting edges from panels. Accordingly, the agency will continue to subject all joints falling within the parameters of the standard to the requirements of the standard without regard to the material used in a panel.

With respect to the questions posed in your letter, you first ask whether the right and left hand windshield pillar covers must comply with the standard. You indicate that a hose runs behind one pillar cover and a cable control runs behind the other. The agency has indicated that the installation of a wire, hose or cable behind a wall does not make that wall a maintenance access panel. Accordingly, the agency concludes that the joints connecting the pillar cover panel are subject to the standard.

Your questions 2, 4, and 5 refer to panels that cover motors which you indicate must be serviced. The motors include the windshield wiper and heater motors. The agency is unable to determine from your pictures and sketches whether all of the joints surrounding these motors are subject to the standard. The joints connecting panels that must be removed for routine servicing of a vehicle's motors would not be considered as joints subject to the standard. However, these joints must be the minimum necessary for routine servicing of the motors. In compliance testing your vehicles, the agency will only exempt those joints that are necessary for routine servicing. We will not exempt adjacent panel joints simply because wires run beneath them.

In your third question you describe a dash trim panel that covers a wiring harness, some chassis cowl mounting bolts, and an entrance door cable. The agency needs more information to make a formal determination with respect to this panel and its joints. Our inclination based upon the information that you have presented is that these would be joints subject to the standard, because the removal of this panel is not required for routine maintenance.

Your final question asks whether the entrance door control cover must comply with the standard. You state only that must be removed to remove the dash trim panel. As we stated in the last paragraph, we believe that the dash trim panel joints may be required to comply with the standard. If this is the case, it may also be necessary for the door control cover joints to comply with the standard. The key factor in determining whether this panel's joints must comply with the requirement is whether the panel must be removed for routine maintenance. You have not proven such a need in your letter, concerning the need for these joints to comply with the standard.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

November 12, 1979

Mr. Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

The purpose of this letter is to obtain rulings that the seven parts listed below will comply with the exclusions allowed under S.4 of FMVSS 221 as they relate to the need for maintenance.

The parts are made from a flexible plastic material called polypropolene. The purpose is to cover many unsightly conditons of components required to be installed, some due to assembly of the body to the chassis, and others required by either federal or state regulations. It is our opinion that a very important secondary purpose is accomplished in that due to the flexibility and rounded corners of the plastic parts, many edges and corners of steel parts will gain additional protection. Additionally if the parts were to come loose during an accident, which is unlikely unless of a violent type, they could do little, if any, physical injury due to the flexibility of the material.

(1) Right-hand & Left-hand Windshield Pillar Covers

(a) The left-hand pillar requires the running of an air or vacuum line to the top of the windshield to operate a mechanical wig wag signal that informs the driver of a drop in air pressure in the brake system and is required in some states.

(b) The right-hand pillar has a cable control anounced to the windshield pillar that connects the driver operated door control to the mechanism at the top of the doors to operate the entrance doors.

(2) Left-hand Dash Trim

This part must be removed to service the windshield wiper motor, mechanism and wiring.

(3) Dash Trim - Center.

Covers a wiring harness, some of the body to chassis cowl mounting bolts that need to be retightened occasionally and entrance door control cable.

(4) Right-hand Dash Trim

Requires removal to service the right-hand windshield wiper motor, mechanism, wiring for the windshield motor, right-hand heater and door control cable.

(5) Right-hand Heater Cover

Must be removed to service the motors, blower, and heater cores.

(6) Entrance Door Control Cover

This covers the body of the door control which houses the switches that operate a part of the roof light warning system and stepwell light. It also must be removed along with the door control assembly in order to remove the center dash trim.

Our planning is to use these parts in production January 1980, but final decision will be based upon your rulings.

We definitely are of the opinion this adds to the enterior safety as well as appearance, but requires decisions before the expense of tooling for these parts.

A photograph is enclosed showing a prototype with the subject parts installed.

Due to tooling lead time and present date, your prompt reply is requested.

Very truly yours,

R. M. Premo - Director Vehicle Safety Activities

RMP:cr Enclosures (2)

Photographs Dwg. #LO-21782-D

ID: nht90-1.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: JANUARY 23, 1990

FROM: GEORGE F. BALL -- GM LEGAL STAFF

TO: STEPHEN P. WOOD, ESQ. -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 2-27-90 TO GEORGE F. BALL FROM STEPHEN P. WOOD; (A35; STD. 201; PART 571.3

TEXT: General Motors Corporation is writing to obtain your interpretation of the scope and coverage of Standard 201 (49 CFR 571.201) as it applies to "interior compartment doors," and your interpretation of the definition of "interior compartment door," which is contained in 49 CFR 571.3.

General Motors plans to offer a convenience feature in one of its car lines planned for Model Year 1991. It is requested that the design details of the feature and the car line for which it is intended be treated by NHTSA as confidential business inform ation, as the information relates to a product plan for a specific model that is not yet publicly available. However, for purposes of this interpretation, the feature can be described generally as a cupholder permanently installed in the console assembl y between the driver and right front passenger. The cupholder assembly includes a pivot, which allows the cupholder to recess into the console when it is not needed. When the cupholder is recessed, the bottom face of the cupholder assembly is flush wit h the console assembly.

We are seeking your concurrence with our interpretation that the bottom face of the cupholder is not covered by @ 3.3 of FMVSS 201 because it is not an "interior compartment door" as defined by Part 571.3.

Part 571.3 provides:

Interior compartment door means any door in the interior of the vehicle installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects.

When the bottom of the cupholder is facing the driver and passenger (which is the only configuration it could be thought of as a cover), there is no storage space for personal effects. Thus, applying the language of the definition, the underside of the cupholder cannot be considered an "interior compartment door" because it is not "installed by the manufacturer as a cover for storage space normally used for personal effects."

Furthermore, General Motors believes this feature does not pose a hazard to occupants in crashes and is consistent with NHTSA's occupant protection interests. The purpose of the standard is to reduce the potential for injury from the interior surfaces o f the passenger compartment by encouraging the use of energy absorbing materials, rounded edges on exposed surfaces and similar designs. In its January 1988 evaluation of Standard 201, NHTSA describes the standard as:

". . . the synthesis of occupant compartment geometry, energy absorbing materials on the interior surfaces of the compartment and the integrity and controlled crush of the entire vehicle structure. It is all the parts of a vehicle - other than the re straint system - which, if well designed, combine to make the occupant compartment a potentially safe environment even in a severe crash."

(NHTSA Technical Report evaluating Standard 201, January 1988, DOT HS 807 203, page xv)

In the evaluation, NHTSA concluded that Standard 201 has been successful in improving the safety of the instrument panel, particularly for the right front passenger. NHTSA noted that much of the safety improvement is attributable to design changes made voluntarily by the manufacturers in areas not directly regulated by Standard 201, but which incorporate the instrument panel modifications contemplated by the Standard (such as use of energy absorbing materials).

Consistent with this observation, General Motors has incorporated the goals of Standard 201 in the design of the cupholder. For example, it is constructed of energy absorbing material, and with 1/8" radii on the cupholder corners facing the vehicle occu pant so as to prevent contact with sharp edges. General Motors notes that its cupholder, when in view, presents (in theory) no greater hazard than cupholders designed to be permanently fixed in place in a vehicle's console which would be allowed by FMVS S 201. In this connection, General Motors is not aware of any formal concerns expressed by NHTSA about the safety of permanently fixed cupholders. Additionally, inasmuch as the cupholder rotation is controlled by a viscous drive mechanism, it takes app roximately 3.5 seconds to open, which is substantially longer than the fraction of a second duration of an impact. This slow opening rate would negate concerns about the cupholder "flying open and striking an occupant in a crash." (See NHTSA 1/31/86 Let ter to Russ Bomhoff.)

Moreover, a review of the history of the "interior compartment door" provision of Standard 201 has persuaded General Motors that the standard was not intended to cover the bottom face of its cupholder.

When NHTSA (then the National Highway Safety Bureau) proposed to regulate the performance of glove compartment doors in 1967 (revised later in 1967 to read "interior compartment doors"), the agency received numerous public comments regarding the scope of the Standard. Many auto manufacturers and their trade associations pointed out that there was no definition of "interior compartment door" in the proposal, leading to the possible inclusion of such features as ash tray doors or covers for spare tire co mpartments. The Automobile Manufacturers Association (the predecessor to the MVMA) offered a suggested definition of "interior compartment door" which was intended to "ensure that interior compartment door assemblies not intended to come within the scop e of the Standard were not inadvertently included" in the Standard's coverage. The proposed AMA definition attempted to clarify the Standard's coverage by focusing on whether the "interior compartment door" was intended as a "closure for stowage space i ntended for personal belongings."

Although several commenters (including California Highway Patrol, the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission and the State of Illinois) urged that the Standard should cover ash trays and other such compartments, the preamble to the final rule in October 196 8 agreed that interior compartments such as ash trays and spare tire covers were not included in the Standard's coverage. The Agency adopted a variation of the industry association definition, asserting that "it was not intended that ash receivers and s pare tire compartment doors in station wagons be included in the Standard and a definition has been added to clarify the application of the Standard." (33 Fed. Reg. 15794, Oct. 25, 1968). Indeed, NHTSA/NHSB's acknowledgement in the preamble to the final rule that ash trays and spare tire compartment doors were never intended to be covered by the Standard confirms that NHTSA/NHSB was not concerned with every item that may open in the occupant compartment; rather, NHTSA/NHSB was concerned with those door s (primarily, but not limited to, glove box doors) which could themselves induce injury during a crash.

The NHTSA has had few opportunities to interpret the definition of "interior compartment door" or the pertinent provisions of Standard 201; however, those which do exist support our conclusion that the design in question is not covered. One such interpr etation was issued to Russ Bomhoff of Precision Pattern, Inc. on January 31, 1986, and concluded that fold-down tables mounted in seat backs and doors are not "interior compartment doors," presumably because they are not covers for any storage space.

A July 3, 1984 interpretation to Bruce Henderson of Automobile Importers of America concluded that a fuse box cover was also beyond the purview of Standard 201, stating that: "The definition [of interior compartment door] is meant to include such storage areas as

the "glovebox" which has a larger door which could fly open i crash, and not a portion of the vehicle's electrical system such as a fuse box, which is not used as storage space."

In an August 21, 1985, interpretation to Mazda, the Agency found an interior compartment door in connection with an expandable magazine rack; this interpretation is distinguishable because both Mazda and the Agency concluded that the magazine rack was st orage space for personal effects.

In conclusion, after a review of the Standard, its regulatory history and applicable interpretations, General Motors concludes that the new design does not constitute an "interior compartment door" within the meaning of FMVSS 201 and its associated defin ition. We respectfully request your concurrence with this conclusion by March 1.

ID: nht69-2.51

DATE: 02/20/69

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; H.M. Jacklin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Toyo Kogyo Company, Limited

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of November 30, 1968 (your reference No. GSAE-26) requesting information to a number of questions related to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. I regret that we did not receive your October 5, 1968 letter and that the pressure of work has delayed my answer to your most recent letter.

I am glad to send you the following information:

a. MVSS No. 112 - Headlight Concealment Devices.

1. It is stipulated in S.4.6 that "each headlamp concealment device shall, within an ambient temperature range of -20 to +120 degrees F., be capable of being fully opened in not more than three seconds after actuation of the mechanism described in S.4.3." With regard to the temperature condition at the time of a test, if only the ambient temperature satisfies the cold temperature conditions, is it all right to pay no regard to other conditions, such as the sticking of frost, ice, etc.?

ANSWER: It is only necessary that the ambient temperature conditions (-20 to +120 degrees F.) be satisfied at the time of the test.

b. MVSS No. 114 - Theft Protection.

1. With regard to the stipulation in S.4.2 that "The prime means for deactivating the car's engine or other main source of motive power shall not activate the deterrent required by S.4.1.(b)," we have provided the ignition switch with four stages as shown in the sketch below: our key-locking system is of the mechanism that the system does not activate at the stage "Off", activates only at the stage, "Lock" and satisfies S.4.4. Does this mechanism conform to S.4.2.7

ANSWER: The system as you describe it appears to conform to S4.2; however, the Bureau does not issue approvals of any specific system, and the development of equipment to comply with this requirement is the responsibility of the individual manufacturer.

2. With reference to the stipulation in S.4.1. "Each passenger car shall have a key-locking system that, whenever the key is removed, will prevent ----.", we would like to know whether or not we must provide such a mechanism as the key can be removed only at the stage "Lock" and cannot at the stage "Off".

ANSWER: A locking system having such a position that the key may be removed without activating either the cars' steering lock or its self-mobility lock would not conform to the standard in its present form, since paragraph S4.1 of the standard requires each car to have a key locking system that, whenever the key it removed, will prevent either steering or self-mobility of the car, or both.

c. MVSS No. 201 - Occupant Protection in Interior Impact

1. With regard to the interpretation of the stipulation in S.3.1 " , the deceleration of the head form shall not exceed 80 g for more than 3 milliseconds," when the deceleration wave -- shown in the chart below -- is obtained.

in case DELTA t[1] < 3 milliseconds, we interpret that the standard is satisfied even when delta t[1] +="SIGMA" t[2] t[3] t;> 3 milliseconds.

Is our interpretation correct? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Your interpretation is correct. The standard permits more than one peak that exceed 80g which, cumulatively, may add to more than 3 milliseconds. No single peak may continuously exceed 80g for more than a 3 millisecond duration.

2. When the areas stipulated in S.3.1.1.(d) -- "Areas outboard of any point of tangency on the instrument panel of a 6.5 inch diameter head form tangent to an inboard of vertical longitudinal plane tangent to the inboard edge of the steering wheel," -- are illustrated, which of the following hatched portions in the figures below is in conformity to the stipulation? (Illustration omitted)

ANSWER: Figure (a) is correct for the inboard side. Present requirements do not apply to the area outboard of the steering wheel on the instrument panel.

d. MVSS No. 207 - Anchorage of Seats.

S.3.3 Folding and hinged seats. Except for folding auxiliary seats and seats with backs which are adjustable for occupant comfort only.

1. Is it correct to interpret that the underlined part is referring to seats with backs of reclining mechanism enabling to adjust the angle of the back?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. Or, should we interpret that the seats with reclinable backs come under the hinged seats?

ANSWER: No.

3. a. In the case of car with four doors, if the front seats are those with reclinable backs, these are presumed to be the ones corresponding to (1). Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

b. In the case of a car with two doors, we would like to interpret that only the reclinable seat backs with folding mechanism enabling the passengers on the rear seat to get in and out are in conformity to (2). Is our interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

S.3.3.1 The release control shall be readily accessible to the occupant of that seat and to the occupant of any seat immediately behind that seat.

1. The above stipulation is presumed to be laid down for the egress of the passengers on the rear seat. Therefore, when the reclining seats are installed in a four-door car, we would like to consider it unnecessary to pay regard to the underlined part. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: Yes.

2. In the case of a two-door car, if the control which can be easily operated by passengers on the rear seat is installed only on one side (the right side), the passengers on the rear seat can operate the control by moving to the right side. Consequently, we consider it sufficient to install only on the right side the control which is easily accessible to the passengers on the rear seat. Is this interpretation correct?

ANSWER: In the case of a two-door car, for a split back or bucket seat arrangement, where both seat backs fold, a release control should be provided on the outboard side of each folding seat back. If the seat back is split and only one seat back folds, only one release control is required on the outboard side.

e. MVSS No. 210 - Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

1. We judge that the fastening strength of the seat belt anchorage will change, depending on the shape of the eye bolt attaching the seat belt to the seat belt anchorage point.

If an anchorage is tested by using our designed seat belt assembly and the strength of the anchorage can be assured, we understand that the anchorage fully conforms to the standard, and also understand that it is not necessary to guarantee the owners of Mazda vehicles if they attach a test bolt assembly other than the one designated by us. Is our interpretation correct?

We, of course, will specify in our Operation Manual that the seat belt assembly designated by our company must be used.

ANSWER: Under Paragraph S.5.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 210, anchorages are to be tested by using a Type 1 or Type 2 seat bolt assembly as defined in FMVSS No. 209. If you follow this procedure, using a belt which complies to No. 209, and your anchorages meet the requirements of Standard No. 210, then you are in compliance with this standard.

I must point out that this Bureau does not issue approvals on items of equipment or on vehicle designs. Therefore, the above comments are for your information only and in no way relieve the vehicle manufacturer from his responsibility for certifying that the assembled vehicle meets the requirements of the Standards.

ID: nht88-1.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/14/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Karl-Heinz Faber Vice President Product Compliance and Service Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. P.O. box 350 Montvale, NJ 07645

Dear Mr. Faber:

Thank you for your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. In particular, you asked for an interpretation of the provisions of S4.3 of the standard. I regret the delay in answering your questions.

S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides, in part, that "Anchorages for automatic and for dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section." (Emphasis added.) You first asked the agency to confirm that anchorages to be used with automatic and dynamically tested safety belts that meet the requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 are exempt from all of the anchora ge location requirements of S4.3. You are correct that S4.3 of Standard No. 210 provides that such anchorages are exempt from all the location requirements.

The amendment to exempt anchorages of dynamically tested seat belt assemblies from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210 became effective on May 5, 1986, well in advance of the September 1, 1989 effective date for dynamic testing of man ual belts. This effective date indicates that the agency did not intend to limit the exemption from the anchorage location requirements to manual safety belts that were required to be dynamically tested. Additionally, the exemption applies to dynamically tested seat belt assemblies that "meet" the frontal crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208, rather than to vehicles "subject to" the frontal crash protection requirements of that Standard. This language indicates that NHTSA intended to allow manufacturers to take advantage of the exemption from the anchorage location requirements for dynamically tested safety belts before the dynamic testing requirements were applicable to such belts. Accordingly, if a vehicle is equipped with a manual safet y belt at either or both front outboard seating positions, and the anchorage or anchorages for those belts do not comply with the anchorage location requirements set forth in S4.3 of Standard No. 210, the manufacturer must certify that the belts attached at any such anchorage points comply with 55.1 of Standard No. 208.

In your second question, you asked the following:

We also understand that such dynamic testing may be combined with other compliance testing, and the vehicle or vehicles used may be equipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management feature s, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy absorbing instrument panel, collapsible steering column, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass, emergency tensioning retractors, etc. may be installed and funct ional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

During its compliance testing, NHTSA combines a test of the occupant crash protection capabilities of automatic or manual safety belts with testing done to determine compliance with other standards. The agency tests vehicles to the frontal barrier crash requirements of Standard Nos. 208, 212, 219, and 301 in a single barrier impact. In conducting these compliance tests, NHTSA tests vehicles in their "as delivered" form with all items of standard equipment present in the vehicle. Thus, if a vehicle has d evices, such as an air bag system or pre-tensioning devices for the belts, installed in the vehicle as items of standard equipment, NHTSA's compliance testing is conducted with those items in place and fully functioning. If our compliance testing shows t hat a vehicle tested with a manual safety belt at one or both front outboard seating positions complies with the occupant crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208, then the anchorages for the belt or belts would not be subject to the anc horage location requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 210.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

April 20, 1987

Ms. Erica Z. Jones, Chief Counsel Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC. 20590

Subject: Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-210

Dear Ms. Jones: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.(MBNA) requests an interpretation of FMVSS-2IC "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages-Passenger Cars, Multi-Purpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks, and Buses". Paragraph S4.3 Location states, "Anchorages for automatic and for dyna mically tested seat belt assemblies that meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S5.1 of Standard No. 208 (49 CFR Part 571.208) are exempt from the location requirements of this section."

MBNA interprets the foregoing provision to mean that all of the anchorage location requirements under paragraph S4.3 (i.e. S 4.3.1, S 4.3.1.1, S 4.3.1.2, S 4.3.1.3, S 4.3.1.4, and S 4.3.2) are not applicable to seat belt assemblies which have been dynami cally tested via a vehicle crash test and meet the occupant protection criteria described in S5.1 of Standard No. 208. We also understand that such dynamic testing may be combined with other compliance testing, and the vehicle or vehicles used may be equ ipped "as delivered" for sale to a consumer. Accordingly, the vehicle structure with built-in energy management features, seats with designed-in anti-submarining construction, energy absorbing instrument panel, collapsible steering column, driver and/or passenger airbag(s), anti-lacerative windshield glass: emergency tensioning retractors , etc. may be installed and functional, where applicable, during the compliance crash test.

Ms. Erika Z. Jones Request for Interpretation Concerning FMVSS-210

The basis for our interpretation is set forth in the Agency's preamble comments to MVSS-208 (Part 571; S208-PRE28B) concerning mandatory dynamic testing where the preamble provides that ". . . the (dynamic testing) standard will assure that the vehicle's structure, safety belts, steering column, etc., perform as a unit to protect occupants, as it is only in such a test that the synergistic and combination effects of these vehicle components can be measured". This factor when coupled with the Agency's st atement that the best way to measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination is through a vehicle crash test" fully supports our interpretation.

Accordingly, we would request that you confirm our interpretation that, during dynamic testing of seat belts, the vehicle should be equipped and functional as closely as possible to a new vehicle which would be sold to the consumer, and that such testing supplants the requirements of 54.3

Thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,