ID: nht78-4.14

DATE: 11/28/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Alloy Trailers, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 24, 1978, questions about the effect of the PACCAR v. NHTSA decision (532 F2d. 632 (9th Cir. 1978)) on certain aspects of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. This reply addresses several issues related to the questions you asked.

Standard No. 121 as a whole was not invalidated by the Court decision. Only the "road testing" requirements of S5.3.1, S5.3.2, and S5.7.1 for trucks and trailers were addressed by the Court, and only some of the performance requirements and test procedures associated with them were held invalid. Thus, requirements such as timing, dynamometer, and equipment specifications remain valid and enforceable.

One question raised is whether the court invalidated these "road testing" requirements and associated procedures only as of the October 11th entry of mandate, or whether the court found the requirements invalid back to their January and March 1975 implementation dates. While there are conflicting statements in the court's opinion about the holding on "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances, we believe that these requirements are invalid from the effective date of the standard for affected vehicle types. This conclusion relies on the court's conclusion about the adequacy of promulgation "at the time [the standard] was put into effect" (573 F2d. at 640).

Thus the NHTSA does not believe that a vehicle which lacks "no lockup" performance or the specified 60-mph stopping distance capability would be in noncompliance with Standard No. 121. Noncompliance enforcement of these performance aspects will, therefore, not be pursued.

A second question is whether a commercial facility (manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business) can disconnect or remove antilock systems that were installed prior to October 11, 1978, the date on which the court made its decision effective. With regard both to new vehicles in inventory and used vehicles in service that have already been antilock equipped, @ 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) states that --

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard . . . .

The issue is whether the antilock was "installed . . . . in compliance with an applicable . . . . standard." Because the NHTSA concluded that the "no lockup" and 60-mph stopping distances have been invalidated from the effective date of the standard, we also conclude that a manufacturer could not have actually been installing antilock or the brake performance levels in satisfaction of such a requirement, however much intended. Therefore, the NHTSA would not consider it to be a violation of @ 108(a)(2)(A) for a commercial facility to disconnect an antilock system or to provide instructions on how it can safely be disconnected. The NHTSA recommends that any modification be undertaken only after consulting with the manufacturer about the safest configuration of the particular vehicle.

I would emphasize that disconnection of systems prior to the first retail sale may not have the effect of causing the vehicle to fail to comply with other applicable requirements.

The issue of disconnecting systems in service is totally different in the case of a manufacturer of agency determination that an antilock system contains a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety. Under @ 154 of the Act, the vehicle manufacturer must provide an adequate repair of safety-related defects, unless replacement of the vehicle or refund of the purchase price is undertaken. "Adequate repair" is defined in @ 159(4) not to include "any repair which results in substantially impaired operation of a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment." The agency does not agree with the court's view that antilock systems have the potential to reduce highway safety, and therefore, anything other than repair of an antilock system containing a safety-related defect would be considered by the NHTSA to constitute substantial impairment of the motor vehicle.

A third question is whether Canadian-built (or U.S.-built for export) trucks and trailers which comply with the Canadian air brake standard can now be imported since certain "road testing" portions of the U.S. standard have been invalidated. The Canadian standard came into effect later than the U.S. standard and it differs in having no stopping distance, "no lockup", timing, or dynamometer requirements. Thus, there may be differences between vehicles built for the U.S. and those built for Canadian service.

Operation of uncertified vehicles in the United States constitutes an importation in violation of @ 108(a)(1)(A) of the Act if built after the applicable effective date of Standard No. 121. Enclosed is a letter to the Canadian Trucking Association on this subject. The invalidation of some of the differences between the U.S. and Canadian standards does not completely eliminate the disparity of required performance between the two groups of vehicles. This would apply both to vehicles in service and to newly manufactured vehicles that do not comply with Standard No. 121.

You also asked whether the 12-foot-lane requirement of S5.3.2 for trailers remains in effect. The answer to your question is yes. Because trailers are not required to stop within a specified distance, we concluded that there would be no difficulty in coming to a controlled stop within the 12-foot-lane without "no lockup" performance, as long as the 90-psi application requirement was also considered invalidated by the Ninth Circuit. If you have information that indicates this not to be the case, we would appreciate hearing from you as soon as possible as the basis for reconsideration of our interpretation.

You undoubtedly noted that our October 19th Federal Register notice of interpretation of the PACCAR decision stated that requirements such as reservoir capacity were not invalidated by the Ninth Circuit, despite their indirect relationship to the "no lockup" requirement. As for rulemaking to make such a change, I have enclosed a copy of our recent proposal on trailer parking and emergency brake requirements. You will find a discussion of the reservoir issue on page 41058 and a request for information from manufacturers. I encourage you to submit available information to the NHTSA, at the address noted in the proposal.

ID: nht79-1.38

DATE: 01/24/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

JAN 24 1979 NOA-30

Mr. Heinz W. Gerth Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. One Mercedes Drive P. O. Box 350 Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Gerth:

This responds to your letter of December 19, 1978, asking whether a manually adjustable seat belt anchorage for the upper torso portion of a 3-point safety belt is permissible under Safety Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. You state that this new anchorage is adjustable over a certain range and is intended to increase wearing comfort by providing a better "fit" for all occupants.

We have reviewed the drawings and specifications enclosed with your letter and determined that the proposed adjustable anchorage design would not be precluded by Safety Standard No. 210 if the design meets the following two conditions: (1) the anchorage complies with the zone location requirements of the standard in any of the positions to which can be adjusted, and (2) the anchorage complies with the strength requirements of the standard at all times, even when the adjusting mechanism (bolt) is in its loosened status. There is nothing in the standard that prevents the use of adjustable anchorages, per se.

From discussions with your engineers, we found that the proposed design would require the use of a tool to tighten the adjusting bolt. We are concerned that this feature could reduce potential increases in belt use. For example, if driver A adjusts the belt anchorage to its lowest position, will driver B readjust the belt when he enters the car if the two drivers are of different sizes and the lowest position is uncomfortable for driver B? If the readjustment requires the use of a wrench to loosen and retighten the anchorage bolt, will driver B simply choose not to wear the belt? We believe that a manually adjusting anchorage that does not require the use of tools would be a preferable design in terms of potential seat belt use.

The agency is of course very interested in any seat belt design that will increase comfort and convenience and, thereby, seat belt use. Therefore, we encourage innovative designs. Please keep us informed about the progress of your work on your new anchorage system.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration hereby grants your request for confidential treatment of the drawings included in your letter (enclosures 1, 2 and 4). We have preliminarily determined that the drawings and specifications contain privileged commercial information that is exempt from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4).

Sincerely,

Joseph J. Levin, Jr. Chief Counsel

December 19, 1978

Docket Section Room 5108 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Standard 210; Seat Belt Anchorages - Request for Interpretation

Gentlemen:

Statistics released by the NHTSA on December 15, 1978, again reflect the very low seat belt usage rate in the United States inspite of their known effectiveness. Earlier surveys have shown that approximately 50% of persons refusing to wear seat belts do so because they perceive them to be uncomfortable and inconvenient to manipulate and wear.

In an effort to overcame this wide spread public perception, our parent company, Daimler-Benz A.G., has devised 2 manually adjustable anchorage for the shoulder portion of the 3-point safety belt. The anchorage is adjustable over a range of 90mm and is designed to increase wearing comfort by providing a better "fit" for all occupants ranging from the 5 percentile female to 95 percentile male.

Daimler-Benz has tested this device and has concluded that it conforms to the strength requirements of standard 210. However, it is not entirely clear if such a device per se is permissable under the Standard.

We are including with this communication a written description of the device, and several drawings and photographs. We request your review of the material and advice if the manually adjustable seat belt anchorage is, in fact, permissable under Standard 210. If additional information is requested, please do not hesitate to contact this office.

In closing we would like to draw your attention to enclosures 1, 2 and 4 which we consider to contain proprietary information which would be damaging to our competitive interests if released to the public. We request that these enclosures be withheld from the public docket in accordance with 5 U.S.C. Section 552 (b)(4).

Yours truly,

Enclosures

"Proprietary"

We request that the information designated 'proprietary' in the enclosure be treated by the agency as confidential and be exempted from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. Section 552(b) (4) because such information is a trade secret and contains privileged commercial information. Knowledge of this information to competitors could result in significant competitive damage to Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc.

Enclosure 3

Description

The upper safety belt anchorage consists of an "M" shaped base plate (1) which is attached with screws at points (6) and (7), and tabs at point (5) to the "B" pillar, and which holds the adjustable retaining plate (2) in place on which the mounting nut (4) for the belt sash is spot welded, and which also holds the spring-loaded belt arresting device (3).

The base plate (1) has, depending on the adjustment travel of the seat belt sash (8), an elongated hole (1a) in the middle to permit a screw (9) to pass through and fasten the belt sash to the retaining plate (2).

Within the elongated hole (1a) three indexes (10),(11), & (12) are arranged in pairs to receive the spring-loaded belt arresting device (3) and hold the retaining plate (2) in place. Because of the way the retaining plate (2), and the arresting device (3) are configured, it is assured that when loaded the arresting device (3) will lock into place as there is no arm between the projection (13), and the indexes (10),(11), & (12) which could cause a moment to be exerted on the arresting device (3). An additional pre-condition for the uninterrupted functioning of the arresting device (3) is that the restraining plate (2) to which the arresting device (3) is attached, does not lift off the base plate when loaded. This is achieved with the threaded (9) connection to the retaining plate (2), and by means of two tabs (2a) which, when loaded, rest against the B-pillar. This assures that the arresting mechanism (3) is loaded only by shear forces.

PS:Wkr 11/9/78

ID: nht87-3.5

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/25/87

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: John R. Niemela -- President, Ranger International Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John R. Niemela, President Ranger International Inc. P.O. BOX 311 Peterborough, NH 03458

This responds to your letter asking whether a "Mototractor" you may import into the United States would be considered a motor vehicle. The vehicle looks like a conventional motorcycle, except tractor tires are mounted on wheels that enclose auxiliary fue l storage tanks. It has a maximum speed of 40 miles per hour. Based on the information provided with, your letter, it appears that your Mototractor would not be a motor vehicle.

Section 102(3) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(31) defines a "motor vehicle" as any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, ex cept any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

We have interpreted this language as follows. Vehicles that are equipped with tracks or are otherwise incapable of highway travel are plainly not motor vehicles. Agricultural equipment, such as tractors, are not motor vehicles. Further, vehicles designed and sold solely for off-road use (e.g., airport runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles are not considered motor vehicles, even though they may be operationally capable of highway travel.

On the other hand, vehicles that use the public highways on a necessary and recurring basis are motor vehicles. For instance, utility vehicles like the Jeep are plainly motor vehicles, even though they are equipped with special features to permit off-roa d operation. If a vehicle's greatest use will be off-road, but it will spend a substantial amount of time on-road, NHTSA has interpreted the vehicle to be a "motor vehicle". Further, if a vehicle is readily usable on the public roads and is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of owners, NHTSA has found the vehicle to be a motor vehicle. This finding was made with respect to dune buggies and regardless of the manufacturer's stated intent regarding the terrain on which the vehicles we re to be operated.

Your vehicle is not easily classified under either of these groupings. On the one hand, your vehicle has a body configuration nearly identical to a motorcycle and a top speed that would allow it to keep up with the flow of traffic on low speed roads. The se factors suggest that the vehicle should be classified as a motor vehicle. On the other hand, you state repeatedly that this vehicle is intended to be used as a two-wheeled tractor, it comes equipped with tires and wheels that are suited to off-road us e, your advertising shows it pulling and powering a number of off-road attachments, and there is no evidence that it has been or will be substantially used on-road in this country. This suggests that the vehicle should not be classified as a motor vehicl e. In past instances where the agency was asked whether a vehicle Has a motor vehicle when it had both off-road and on-road operating capabilities and about which there is little or no evidence about the extent of the vehicle's on-road use, we have appli ed five factors in offering our advice.

These factors Here:

1. whether States or foreign countries have permitted or are likely to permit the vehicle to be registered for on-road use. The vehicle shown in your brochures does not have lights, mirrors, or a speedometer. we are not aware of any State that would license a vehicle without this equipment for on-road use. Further, the Canadian Tax Court has ruled that the vehicle should be c lassified as a tractor, which presumably means that the vehicle will not be licensed for use on public roads. Hence, this factor suggests that the vehicle should not be considered a motor vehicle.

2. Whether the vehicle is or will be advertised for use-on-road as well as off-road, or whether it is or will be advertised exclusively for off-road use.

Your brochure shows that one of the functions the Mototractor can perform is "road and trail maintenance." Additionally, your advertising shows an attachment that is described "ATT Transport, On/Off Road" (Part No. 1043301. We generally consider such adv ertising to be evidence that the vehicle should be considered a motor vehicle, since purchasers have reason to believe the vehicle is intended to be used on the public roads.

3. Whether the vehicle's manufacturer or dealers Hill assist vehicle purchasers in obtaining certificates or origin or title documents to register the vehicle for on-road use.

You stated that the Chinese manufacturer will provide a certificate of origin/title document. However, this is not the sort of action to which we were referring. Assuming that neither your company nor the Chinese manufacturer assist purchasers in registe ring Mototractors. for on-road use, this would tend to indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

4. Whether the vehicle is or will be sold by dealers also selling vehicles that ace classified as motor vehicles.

You did not provide any information on U.S. dealers for this vehicle. However, you stated that the foreign dealers of Mototractors are agricultural equipment dealers. Assuming this is also true in the United States, this fact would indicate that the vehi cle is not a motor vehicle.

5. Whether the vehicle has or will have affixed to it a warning label stating that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads.

You stated in your letter that a label limiting the vehicle's use will be placed on the Mototractors. Assuming that this label states that the vehicle is not intended for use on public roads, this would indicate that the vehicle is not a motor vehicle.

At this time and after considering the available information, he believe that the Mototractor does not appear to be a motor vehicle. However, we will reexamine this conclusion if we learn that, for example, the vehicle is in fact used on the public roads by a substantial number of its owners.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-1.47

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 02/19/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: The Honorable Charles Wilson

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 6/19/89 letter from Stephen P. Wood to Rod Willaredt (A33; Std. 108); 5/17/89 letter from Rod Willaredt to Taylor Vinson: 4/18/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Wayne Apple (Std. 108); 7/11/88 letter from Erika Z. Jones to William J. Stephenson (Std. 108)

TEXT: The Honorable Charles Wilson House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This is in response to your letter of December 9, 1987, to Ms. Brenda Brown, Office of Congressional Affairs, Department of Transportation, which has been forwarded to this Office for reply. Unfortunately/ the Department has no record of receiving your p revious letter of August 19, 1987.

You have written on behalf of your constituent Mr. W. P. Brandon of Palestine who has designed a Wide Right Turn signal for installation on the rear of trailers. The device consists of the words Wide Right Turn and an arrow, in black on a caution yellow background. The device is attached to the lower right rear of a trailer, and flashes when the turn indicator is positioned for a right turn. Mr. Brandon asks three questions with respect to his device, which I shall answer shortly.

Preliminarily let me note that the applicable Federal law and regulation are, respectively, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 Lamps Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment. St andard No. 108 permits a supplementary lighting device such as Mr. Brandon's as original trailer equipment if it does not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that Standard No. 108 requires, such as the standard turn signal system. The Vehi cle Safety Act permits it as aftermarket trailer equipment if its installation by a person other than the trailer owner does not render inoperative, wholly or in part, equipment installed on the trailer pursuant to Standard No. 108 or any other safety st andard.

With these general remarks in mind, we reach the three questions that Mr. Brandon asked.

"1. Is there any rule regarding the placement of a flashing 'Wide Right Turn' signal on the lower right rear of a trailer?" The answer is no, as long as there is no impairment of the effectiveness of the other rear lamps (i.e., the standard turn signal must continue to operate when the lever is in the position indicating a right turn, but the wide turn signal should not opera te when the hazard warning signals (which operate through the turn signal lamps) are on).

"2. Can the signal be black letters on a safety yellow background or should it be another color"?

The agency does not prescribe the color of supplementary lighting devices, and color is subject only to the "impairment" restriction. Required lighting equipment on the rear of trailers may be white (back up lamps), amber (turn signals), or red (the alte rnative color for turn signals, and the required color for taillamps and stop lamps). I am unsure what "safety yellow" is, but it would not appear to impair the effectiveness of the red, amber, or white lamps on the trailer's rear.

"3. Are there any restrictions on manufacturing of the signal insofar as materials or construction are concerned?"

There are no Federal restrictions or requirements. However, supplementary lighting devices such as Mr. Brandon's are subject to regulation in all their aspects by the States in which they will be sold and used. We are not conversant with State regulation s on this subject, and suggest that, for further advice, Mr. Brandon contact the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

We appreciate Mr. Brandon's interest in safety, and your writing us with respect to his "Wide Turn Signal" device.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

WEB MARKETING COMPANY P. 0. Box 1609 Palestine, TX 75801

August 17, 1987

Mr. Larry Murphy 2265 H. O. B. Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Murphy,

As per our telephone conversation today, the following is a discription of the "Wide Right Turn" signal I have designed. The signal is approximately 10 inches by 12 inches by 1 inch thick. The words and arrow are in black on a caution yellow background. The signal will be attached by bolts or welding to the lower right hand corner of the trailer. The signal will flash on and off when the driver positions his turn indicator for a right turn. (See attached photograph).

What I need to know from the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration following: 1. Is there any rule regarding the placement of a flashing "Wide Right Turn" signal on the lower right rear of a trailer.

2. Can the signal be black letters on a safety yellow back-ground or should it be in another color.

3. Are there any restrictions on manufacturing of the signal insofar as materials or construction are concerned.

As I stated to you on the phone I am working with Patent Attorneys in Houston regarding Patent Application of this signal devise.

Mr. Murphy, your assistance with the D.O.T. in getting me some answers will be greatly appreciated.

Yours very truly,

W. P. Brandon WEB MARKETING COMPANY (214)538-2512

WPB/eb

Ms. Brenda Brown Office- Congressional Affairs Room 1046 (I-25) Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Brown:

We wrote to the Department on August 19, 1987, on behalf of Mr. W.P. Brandon of Palestine, Texas, regarding a "Wide Right Turn" signal for trailer trucks, which he had designed.

I would appreciate it if you will provide us with the status of action on this matter. We are enclosing copies of the prior correspondence for ease of reference.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Charles Wilson

CW:lm

August 19, 1987

Ms. Brenda Brown Office- Congressional Affairs Room 1046 (I-25) Department of Transportation 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Ms. Brown:

Enclosed is a letter from Mr. W.P. Brandon of Palestine, Texas, regarding a "Wide Right Turn" signal for trailer trucks which he has designed.

As you may note, Mr. Brandon has certain questions that he has asked our assistance in getting answers. Any information which you may provide to answer these questions would be appreciated. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Charles Wilson

CW:lm

ID: nht76-4.49

DATE: 07/09/76

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

TO: Chrysler Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

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

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

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

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

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

SINCERELY,

ATTACH.

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

March 16, 1976

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

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

Dear Dr. Gregory:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID: nht74-3.11

DATE: 06/28/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

COPYEE: ING. Hans-Jurgen Sassor -- AUDI NSU Auto Union Germany

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your May 22, 1974, question whether Volkswagen's passive belt system may be equipped with a "comfort clip," and whether an optional Type I lap belt may be offered in conjunction with the passive system. Your passive system consists of an upper torso restraint and, in place of a lap belt, knee padding under the dashboard.

A vehicle which satisfies Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection, may be equipped, at the option of the manufacturer, with additional safety belts which conform to Standard No. 209, Seat belt assemblies. Additional belts, like any required belt, must conform to the S7.2 requirements for latch mechanisms.

S7.2 Latch mechanism. A seat belt assembly installed in a passenger car shall have a latch mechanism --

(a) Whose components are accessible to a seated occupant in both the stowed and operational positions;

(b) That releases both the upper torso restraint and the lap belt simultaneously, if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant; and

(c) That releases at a single point by a push-button action.

This requirement assures that the occupant crash protection provided under Standard No. 208 is not diminished by a complicated and slow series of belt latch mechanisms which could otherwise be introduced into the vehicle.

Volkswagens' passive upper torso restraint and a separate active lap belt do not violate S7.2(b) in combination. Simultaneous release is required only "if the assembly has a lap belt and an upper torso restraint that require unlatching for release of the occupant." As described, Volkswagen's upper torso restraint does not require unlatching for release of the occupant.

With regard to our regulation of "comfort clips", we approved the use of a clip in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors, to relieve belt tension in limited circumstances. A copy of that letter is enclosed. In that case, the lap belt provided could be independently and firmly adjusted to limit occupant movement, providing protection in the event of lateral and rollover crashes. Until we have further details on the functioning of the Volkswagen clips, however, which we urge you to submit, we are unable to determine whether it would conform to the adjustment requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant crash protection.

May 22, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Subject: MVSS 208, Occupant Protection - Request for Clarification

With the publication of Docket 74-4, Notice 2 (39 FR 14593), Volkswagen believes that MVSS 208 now adequately addresses the basic requirements covering passive belt systems, such as the Volkswagen passive shoulder belt/knee bolster restraint described in our petition of October 1, 1973.

However, in the final development phase of our passive belt system the possible inclusion of two ancillary devices came under consideration:

(1) the addition of an active lap belt,

(2) the addition of a "comfort clip" to the passive shoulder belt to relieve the belt force against the occupant during non-impact conditions.

Volkswagen respectfully requests NHTSA clarification of the current Federal requirements covering each of these items, which are discussed in more detail below.

1. Additional Active Lap Belt

Here we are interested in the requirements for the installation of active lap belts together with passive restraints, where the requirements of MVSS 208 are met by the passive restraints alone.

To our knowledge, the last published NHTSA statement addressing this matter appeared in 35 FR 16928 (Preamble to Docket 69-7, Notice 7): "Under the standard as adopted manufacturers will be free to supply seat belts as optional or standard equipment, but may not use them to satisfy the requirements of the standard. Standard No. 210 will continue to require seat belt anchorages to be installed by manufacturers, so that persons who wish to have seat belts installed in their vehicles, for their own use or for use with child seating systems, will be able to do so."

Specifically, we would like to know if a Type 1 lap belt (conforming to MVSS 209) can be installed in addition to the Volkswagen passive shoulder belt/knee bolster system, under either of the following circumstances:

a) where a vehicle equipped with the passive belt system alone meets the requirements of S4.1.2.2 and S4.5.3 of MVSS 208 (second option for passenger cars manufactured from Sept. 1, 1973 to the time when this option expires);

b) where a vehicle equipped with the passive belt system alone meets the requirements of S4.1.3 (a) through (d) (1) proposed in Docket 74-14, Notice 1, and S4.5.3 of MVSS 208.

Our main area of concern in this matter is in regard to the latch mechanism. The passive shoulder belt would have a latch mechanism conforming to S7.2 of MVSS 208, as required under S4.5.3.3(a). If the active lap belt is not governed by MVSS 208, the application of S7.2(b) of MVSS 208 for simultaneous release of lap and upper torso restraint is questionable.

2. Addition of "Comfort Clip"

We are aware that certain vehicles equipped with upper torso restraints with emergency-locking retractors incorporate belt force relief devices ("comfort clips") to make wearing of the belt more comfortable. Although the specifications governing these devices have not been incorporated into the Safety Standards, we understand that correspondence between individual manufacturers and the NHTSA has addressed the guidelines for their use. Since such a "comfort clip" could be applied to the VW passive belt, NHTSA clarification of the regulations relating to this specific usage is requested.

Your early attention to these inquiries would be greatly appreciated, in view of the lead-time constraints we would be facing for possible incorporation of the described items in 1975 model vehicles.

J. W. Kennebeck

Manager

Emissions, Safety & Development

ID: 77-4.42

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/30/77

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: Akin, Gump, Hauer & Feld

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your September 26, 1977, letter asking several questions about the applicability of Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other Than Passenger Cars, to rims modified subsequent to their initial marking by the rim manufacturer.

Standard No. 120, as it applies to rim manufacturers, requires only that the manufacturer mark the rim with the information outlined in section S5.2 of the standard. The standard does not contain substantive performance requirements for tire rims that would necessitate extensive testing to comply with the requirements.

In cases where your client modifies previously marked rims, he might have some responsibilities for compliance with the standard. For those rims where the center disc is only added or altered by your client, there would be no requirement for him to provide his own markings on the tire rim. The rim manufacturer's markings would still contain the accurate size information.

For rims that your client modifies by the insertion of a steel plate increasing the dimensions of the rim, he becomes the rim manufacturer. As a rim manufacturer, it is his responsibility to mark the rim with the information listed and in the manner prescribed in S5.2 of the standard. This information includes the DOT symbol which indicates that he has complied with the requirements of Standard No. 120. Since the rim would have been marked initially with a different size, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) would require that the first markings be removed from the rim to avoid the possibility of confusion to persons who might read the incorrect size listing. This could result in the mismatching of a tire to the modified rim.

In a conversation between Ms. Maryanne Kane of your office and Mr. Roger Tilton of my staff, it was asked whether the NHTSA Standard No. 120 requirements would be applicable to rims manufactured entirely for off-road use. The NHTSA regulates only motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. By definition a motor vehicle is a vehicle used on the roads. Accordingly, vehicles designed for off-road use do not fall within the ambit of our regulations. The same is true for equipment designed for use on those off-road vehicles. The determination of whether a vehicle is an off-road vehicle depends upon its use. I have enclosed an interpretive letter that describes the criteria for determining what vehicles are motor vehicles under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Pub. L. 89-563) (the Act).

You should note further that my time your client undertakes an alteration of a rim, he is performing a manufacturing function that places him within the scope of the Act. Therefore, he would be responsible for any safety-related defects resulting from his manufacturing processes.

SINCERELY,

AKIN, GUMP, HAUER & FELD

September 26, 1977

Roger Tilton Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Administration

Re: Request for Interpretation

In accord with our recent conversation this letter will set forth our request for an interpretation of the application of 49 C.F.R. 571.120, Standard No. 120 (tire selection and rims for motor vehicles other than passenger cars) to certain processes used by our client, Southwest Wheel Manufacturing Company, whereby the rims and wheels of other manufacturers are altered or modified by Southwest Wheel to conform to certain customer requirements. I have enclosed a rough diagram of these changes to accompany the written explanation of each special application used by Southwest Wheel.

Special Application No. 1 (Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4) Diagram Nos. 1, 3 and 4 show a Goodyear rim in four different widths and three different diameters. Depending upon the application, Southwest Wheel adds the center disc to these Goodyear rims. The disc can be installed either as a formed disc manufactured by another company or a flat plate centered disc manufactured by Southwest Wheel. The disc can be located anywhere in the flat portion of the rim base. Placement of the center disc is determined by customer specifications for clearance or tracking or towing vehicles.

Special Application No. 2 (Diagram No. 2) Diagram No. 2 shows a process of splitting the rim and adding two inches to obtain additional width in the rim. This process is normally used for light vehicles, either pick-up trucks or trailers. As shown, the rims are split and Southwest Wheel adds additional rolled material to make the rim wider in order to accomodate special floatation tires used primarily in sand or in swamps. Although these are designed for off-road use, they are used on the highway in going to and from job sites. This process can also be combined with the Special Application No. 1 above, whereby the disc is added to the rims as shown in diagram numbers 1, 3 and 4.

Special Application No. 3 (Diagram No. 6) As seen from Diagram No. 6, Southwest Wheel may, on special order, cut the center disc from the rim base on lathes, move the center discs either in or out on the rim base to increase or decrease the wheel offset and then reweld to complete the process. Again, this is a special order process and done to customer specifications.

Special Application No. 4 (Diagram No. 5) Southwest Wheel purchases rims of the type shown in Diagram No. 5 from other manufacturers, and then installs the center disc to customer's hub application. Even though a wheel may be manufactured by one of the major wheel manufacturers, they do not make a wheel in either the diameter, the width, or both, that the trailer manufacturer wants to use on his equipment. Southwest Wheel then assembles the rim and the disc to its customer specifications.

Special Application No. 5 (Diagram No. 5, Pictures Nos. 10, 11, 12) Southwest Wheel manufacturers special wide-based wheels from rims shown on Diagram No. 5, such as taking two rims size 15 x 10 LBH, splitting them as shown in Picture No. 10, taking two wide sides, and welding them back together both inside and outside as shown in Picture No. 11. After this process, the center disc is then installed as illustrated in Picture No. 12. Thus, Southwest Wheel started out with two rims 10 inches wide and has coverted this product into one rim 13.75 inches wide with the center disc installed, changing the original 15 x 10 LBH rims to a wheel 15 x 13.75 LBH 8-holes 6 1/2 bolt circle.

I would be pleased to meet with you and discuss further any of the above processes and I would, of course, obtain any additional information you might require. Your earliest consideration is appreciated.

Jay D. Zeiler

ID: nht75-2.42

DATE: 09/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: L. A. Fink, Esq.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 3, 1975, concerning Federal preemption of State motor vehicle safety standards. You ask for confirmation that there is no Federal requirement for turn signal lamps or a dual beam headlamp on a motor-driven cycle whose maximum speed does not exceed 30 mph, and that a State is preempted from requiring such items of equipment on these vehicles.

As you noted, 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) provides that where a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a State may not establish or maintain in effect a different standard that covers the same aspect of performance as the Federal standard. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108), establishes the Federal requirements for motorcycle lighting. All motorcycles manufactured between January 1, 1973, and October 14, 1974, were required to be equipped with turn signal lamps. However, effective October 14, 1974, a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose top speed does not exceed 30 mph need not be manufactured with turn signal lamps as required lighting equipment (S4.1.1.26 of Standard No. 108). Any motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less manufactured on or after January 1, 1969, may be equipped with either a single or multiple beam headlamp (Table III, Standard No. 108, incorporating by reference SAE Standard J584, Motorcycle and Motor Driven Cycle Headlamps, April 1964. See Table 1 of J584). This means, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1392(d), that a State is preempted from requiring a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less to be equipped with a multiple beam headlamp if its manufacturer has equipped it with a single beam one. It also means that, if a motorcycle with 5 horsepower or less whose speed does not exceed 30 mph is not equipped with turn signal lamps, a State may not require them.

I hope you will find this of assistance to your clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd.

SINCERELY,

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

August 22, 1975

Robert S. Raymond, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division Attorney General's Office Augusta, Maine

Re: Federal Preemption In accordance with our telephone discussion of today, I am enclosing herewith copies of the following:

(1) NHTSA Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108;

(2) SAE J584 -- referred to in Table 3 of MVSS108; and

(3) 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).

As I explained to you we represent Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A.G., and Bombardier Ltd., joint venturers for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles in the United States. We also represent their distributor for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, Timberland Machines, Lancaster, New Hampshire. I appreciate your assistance in trying to clear up the federal state preemption problem.

The particular problem here involves the possible conflict between the federal standard and the State of Maine regulation concerning headlamps. The federal standard requires only a single beam headlamp whereas the State of Maine regulation apparently requires a double beam.

As I mentioned, the NHTSA in October 1974 prescribed motor vehicle equipment safety standards for a category of vehicles defined as motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle is in this category and fully complies with all NHTSA safety standards.

The enclosed FVSS108 Table 3 prescribes the required federal standards for headlamps and refers to SAE J584. SAE J584 in turn provides that a single beam headlamp is acceptable; a dual beam headlamp is not required.

A look at 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that in the area of motor vehicle safety equipment, this federal standard preempts any state standard dealing with the same aspect of performance. (See the first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d).) As you will see the state standard must be identical with the federal standard; it cannot be higher or lower.

In view of this I would appreciate your clarifying with the appropriate Maine officials, including the motor vehicle registration and inspection authorities, that the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle and any others in the same category qualify for registration and inspection with the single beam headlamp.

I hope this discussion and the enclosed information are sufficient for your purposes. Kindly contact me if you have further questions or need further information.

I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of the State Police inspection authorities, Sgt. Merservy (spelling uncertain), and your office in resolving this problem. I look forward to your early response.

Leonard A. Fink

FRIEDMAN, MEDALIE, OCHS AND JACKS

September 3, 1975

Frank Berndt, Esq. Acting Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Re: Federal Preemption of Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

I am writing on behalf of our clients, Steyr-Daimler-Puch, A. G., and Bombardier, Ltd., joint ventures for the manufacture and distribution of motorized bicycles (mopeds) in the U.S., to request your assistance in clarifying the subject of federal preemption. The issue has arisen in several states, including Maine, Massachusetts and Delaware, where our clients have encountered refusal by motor vehicle authorities to register or inspect the Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle because it lacks either turn signals or dual beam headlights called for by the respective state regulations.

The Bombardier/Puch motorized bicycle, however, does fully comply with all NHTSA safety standards required for motor driven cycles with a maximum speed of 30mph. MVSS108, revised effective October of 1974, specifically eliminates the need for turn signals on this type of vehicle. Furthermore, with regard to headlamp requirements, MVSS108 Table 3 refers to SAE J584 which in turn provides that a single beam headlight is acceptable.

We have furnished the state authorities with copies of the NHTSA standards and also pointed out the provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d). The first sentence of 15 U.S.C. 1392(d) makes clear that the federal standards preempt any state standards dealing with the same aspect of performance and that states shall have no authority to continue in effect any different standards -- either higher or lower. While the respective legal authorities in the various states have been cooperative, I believe the matter could be more quickly and easily disposed of if you would send us a letter confirming that in fact MVSS108 does not require turn signals or dual beam headlights and that these, as well as all other federal motor vehicle safety standards, preempt any different state standards dealing with the same aspects of performance.

My thanks for your cooperation. Please let me know if you have any questions or require further information.

Leonard A. Fink

CC: TAYLOR VINSON

ID: nht74-4.47

DATE: 01/03/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Your letter of October 30, 1973, raises several questions about the present requirements of Standard 208 and its future course, and you suggest modifications of its vehicle loading and the lateral impact requirements to make the standard "representative of real world conditions." You state that leadtime is critical and this consideration compels you to raise specific questions.

The August 15, 1975, date for fully passive systems under Standard 208 was established March 10, 1971. Manufacturers will have had over four years of leadtime to study and design systems to meet the 208 crash protection requirements, or in the alternative to petition for rulemaking to amend them. While a decision to modify elements of Standard 208 is pending within the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, I can assure you that sufficient additional leadtime would be given to develop systems that conform, if such a course were found necessary.

I would recommend against an attempt to predict the future of Standard 208 from a reading of other proposed standards. While our desire is to reduce the complexity and cost of testing by making simultaneous barrier testing to several standards possible, complications such as you point out make the realization of this goal uncertain. You have suggested specific changes in vehicle loading and lateral crash test requirements of Standard 208. We request that these suggestions be proposed as petitions under 49 CFR Part 553.31 to amend the standard if this is your intent. Your petition to permit use of passive belt systems, for example, has been acted on under this procedure.

Sincerely yours,

The Honorable Administrator Dr. Gregory National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

October 30, 1973

Dear Dr. Gregory:

The preamble to docket 73-8, notice 2 (part 572 - Anthropomorphic Test Dummy, and amendment to MVSS 208) states that:

(a) The specified part 572 test dummy is to be used only for compliance testing of passive restraint systems installed in vehicles manufactured during the time period August 15, 1973, to August 14, 1975.

(b) The question of restraint system requirements to be in effect after August 15, 1975, will be the object of future rulemaking action, and the agency will not make any final decision regarding reinstatement of mandatory passive restraint requirements without further notice and opportunity for comment, and

(c) should the agency propose mandatory passive restraint requirement the question of conformity of a suitable dummy will again be open for comment.

The status of the rulemaking for mandatory passive restraints and a suitable dummy for testing these restraints is of extreme importance to Volkswagen. We must know the direction the NHTSA is taking in this matter so that our development work can address the real future requirements. Since leadtime is critical and we have not yet seen the expected rulemaking, we are compelled to raise the following questions:

1. Will the installation of mandatory passive restraint systems be required as of August 15, 1975, or at some later date?

2. Can you please clarify the inconsistency between the statement in the preamble(Illegible Word) docket 73-8, notice 2, that dummy conformity after August 15, 1975, will again be open for comment, and the statement in docket 73-20, notice 1 (fuel for testing after September 1, 1975? (The preamble to docket 73-20, notice 1, suggests that vehicles would be tested under both MVSS 208 and MVSS 301 simultaneously.)

3. If passive restraints become mandatory, will they be required at all seating positions, or only front seating positions? (Again, noting that the preamble to docket 73-20, notice 1 suggests simultaneous testing for MVSS 208 and MVSS 301, S 6.1 of that notice proposes that test dummies be installed only in each front outboard seating position. This could lead to the conclusion that for future rulemaking for MVSS 208, the injury criteria requirements would only be measured for the front outboard seating positions in frontal impacts, and no passive restraint system would be required for the rear seats. Volkswagen has previously commented on the unfavorable cost/ benefit ratio for rear seat passive restraints due to their infrequent occupancy.)

4. MVSS 208 requires a very high loading of the test vehicle. We feel that these loading conditions are not representative of real world conditions. Typically, an automobile has only one or two passengers, and no luggage in the trunk. Since the future requirements for passive restraints will be the subject of further rulemaking, could the NHTSA re-evaluate the test loading requirements and address this point in the rulemaking proposal?

5. MVSS 208 requires that the moving barrier has to have a vertical, rigid, flat rectangular impact surface 78 inches wide and 60 inches high with its lower edge five inches above the ground surface. Thus, the upper edge is 65 inches above the ground surface which is much higher than the front end of any american or imported passenger car.

In lateral barrier impact tests according to MVSS 208 with our current models, our test engineers observed that the dummies adjacent to the barrier impact surface hit the rigid barrier surface with their heads, obtaining very high injury criteria.

Up to now we have not found means to solve this problem. The use of laminated glass for the side windows, for example, did not show better results, because any available crush distance is already used up by the high barrier when the dummies' head impact the windows. As the recent barrier does not represent the front end of a typical car and the injury criteria depends greatly on the barrier height, we feel that paragraph S 8.2.2 of MVSS 208 is unrealistic. We suggest to specify the barrier face as in SAE J 972a. Other barriers for lateral impact such as the barrier established by ECE have even lower or equal upper edges of the impact surface.

Since this barrier height problem is especially critical to our small vehicles, and "Safety Standards shall take into consideration different classes of vehicles, such as small cars" (as recognized by the sixth circuit court of appeals in the Air Bag case), could the NHTSA re-evaluate the need for such a high barrier face and address this point in future rulemaking on passive restraints?

Your answers to each of our questions would be appreciated as soon as possible, so that we can continue our development work for restraint systems after August 15, 1975, with a clear understanding of NHTSA requirements.

Yours truly,

E. Fiala

ID: nht74-5.25

DATE: 04/10/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: Volkswagen of America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your March 8, 1974, letter reviewing our disposition of Volkswagen's petition to add a new crash protection option to S4.1.2 of Standard 208 (49 CFR 571.208). You requested a determination of whether the seat belt assembly described in that petition constitutes a passive restraint system for purposes of Standard 208, that is, one that requires "no action" by vehicle occupants.

The Volkswagen assembly consists of a single diagonal belt for restraint of the upper torso and an energy-absorbing knee bolster. Mounting of the upper torso restraint to the door causes the belt to move forward during occupant entry and then fall back across the occupant's torso when he is seated and the door is closed.

The NHTSA issued an interpretation of what constitutes a "passive" restraint system on May 4, 1971 (36 FR 4600):

The concept of an occupant protection system that requires "no action by vehicle occupants" as used in Standard No. 208 is intended to designate a system that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present in the vehicle.

The question of what constitutes "no action by vehicle occupants" in a vehicle equipped with (presumptively) passive belts is best considered in two stages: (1) entry and exit from the vehicle, and (2) positioning of the belt for safety and comfort.

Entry and exit action "that requires no action other than would be required if the protective system were not present

2 in the vehicle" means that a person is not hampered in his normal movements by the presence of the belt system. A test of this is whether a human occupant of approximately the dimensions of the 50th percentile adult male finds it necessary to take additional actions to displace the belt or associated components in order to enter or leave the seating position in question. An example of impermissible action would be the necessity of manually pushing a belt out of the way to gain access to the seat. Displacement of the components incidental to normal entry and exit, or merely for the convenience of the occupant, would not be prohibited. Examples of permissible displacement would be brushing against the upper torso restraint during seating, or grasping the torso restraint to close the door.

The second question relates to the usefulness of the system once the occupant has been seated. The essence of a passive restraint is that it provides at least the minimum level of protection without relying on occupant action to deploy the restraint. At this stage, then, the question is whether an occupant who has seated himself without taking any "additional action" is in fact protected in a 30 mi/h impact. This can be measured by conducting the impact tests with the belt positioned on the test dummy in the orientation that results when a human occupant enters the vehicle according to the first test described above. It would not be required that the belt position itself for maximum comfort of the human occupant, if it met the safety requirements. For example, if the belt were to fall across the upper arm instead of the clavicle, but still passed the test, the system would be considered conforming.

The procedure for conducting this evaluation would be to have a human occupant enter the vehicle without taking any "additional actions" to displace the belt, to note the location of the belt on him before he exists, to position the test dummy in accordance with S8.1 of Standard 208, to position the belt as it positioned itself on the sample occupant, and then to conduct the impact tests. The exit evaluation would require the human occupant to be seated with the restraint normally deployed and then exit the vehicle without needing to take any separate actions to displace the belt.

This discussion is intended to permit you to evaluate your passive belt system under the language of the May 4, 1971, interpretation.

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

March 8, 1974

Lawrence Schneider National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RE: The Volkswagen Passive Belt

This will refer to our telephone conversation of March 6, 1974, concerning Volkwagen's passive restraint system.

On October 1, 1973, Volkswagenwerk AG and Volkswagen of America, Inc. petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to add a new crash protection option to Paragraph S4.1.2 of Standard 208 in order to permit use of Volkswagen's passive belt in 1975 as well as subsequent model year passenger cars and to make available other changes in Standard 208. A copy of Volkswagen's petition is enclosed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by Notice 1, Docket 74-4 published in 39 Federal Register 3834 dated January 30, 1974, denied that part of the petition that requested the additional option. The petition was rejected as unnecessary on the grounds that Paragraph S4.5.3 of Standard 208 already permitted the use of a passive belt system "to meet the crash protection requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option." The Notice further concludes that "thus, this language permits the use of the Volkswagen passive belt system to meet the perpendicular impact protection requirements of Option 2 and to replace the required seat belt assemblies. Option 2 exists, in fact, to accommodate date the introduction of passive restraint systems like Volkswagens, which cannot yet meet all requirements of Option 1."

2

While we have recognized that Notice 1 is essentially a proposal for rule making without binding effect as a rule or regulation, it also disposes unconditionally of that part of Volkswagen's petition which sought the inclusion of an additional option. Nowhere does the Notice call upon interested persons to submit their comments with respect to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's denial of Volkswagen's petition for rule making. Comments are invited only in regard to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's proposal for amending Paragraphs S4.1.2.2 and S4.5.3.3

Because questions have been raised regarding the qualification of Volkswagen's new restraint concept as a system that requires no action on the part of the occupant, I would appreciate your confirmation that the system described in our petition of October 1, 1973, constitutes a passive belt within the meaning of Paragraph S4.5.3 to meet the crash protection requirements of the second option set forth in Paragraph S4.1.2.2.

Sincerely,

Gerhard P. Riechel Attorney

Enclosure

cc: Philip Hutchinson