ID: nht80-2.5

DATE: 04/17/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Bartman, Braun & Halper

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

APR 17, 1980 NOA-30

Mr. Samuel W. Halper Bartman, Braun & Halper Suite 1015 1880 Century Park East Los Angeles, California 90067

Dear Mr. Halper:

This responds to your letter of March 13, 1980, on behalf of California Strolee, Inc., concerning Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems.

You asked whether a "foam tray" marketed as an accessory for a child restraint by Strolee is prohibited by section S5.2.2.2 of the standard. According to your description, the tray "may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners" and is made of polyurethane foam and "does not contain any metal or solid parts." The purpose of the device is "to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides."

Section S5.2.2.2 prohibits any fixed or movable surfaces in front of the child except for surfaces that adequately restrain the test dummy in the 20 mph test. If the foam tray attaches to the child restraint so that it is the only surface in front of the child, the child restraint would have to be tested with just the tray as specified in Section S5.2.2.2. If the foam tray is attached to a surface that complies with S5.2.2.2, such as a padded shield, a separate test using the foam tray alone would not be required.

You also raised a question about section S6.1.2.1.2. You explained that Strolee is considering the use of "an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child." The impact shield "would be removable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode." When the restraint is used in a rear-facing position, the child is to be restrained by a five-point belt system. You asked if the Strolee seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II in a rear-facing position.

The answer is no. Section S6.1.2.3.2 provides that each fixed or movable surface is to be positioned in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions prior to the testing required by S6.1.2.1.2. Thus, if the instructions inform users that the removable shield is not to be used in a rear-facing position, then the restraint need not be tested at 20 mph in a rear-facing position. The restraint would be tested at 20 mph in the forward-facing position with the shield in place but with none of the restraint system belts fastened, unless they are an integral part of the shield.

You also asked about obtaining copies of interpretations issued by the agency. The agency's docket section maintains a file of the interpretations for each standard and can provide you with copies. The address is: Docket Section, Room 5108, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

March 13, 1980

Mr. Stephen Oesch Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Department of Transportation Washington, D. C.

Re: Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems California Strolee, Inc. ("Strolee")

Dear Mr. Oesch:

It was a pleasure for Mr. Hyde and me to meet with you and your associates concerning the above referenced car seat regulations. As you know, our firm represents Strolee and we are writing this letter to you on their behalf.

We are sending you under separate cover a letter setting forth in detail our objections to what we perceive to be the ambiguities in the standard and our comments in relation thereto. The purpose of this letter is to seek your opinion under the existing standard concerning two areas of concern to our client. They are as follows:

1) Section 5.2.2.2 provides that each forward facing child restraint system shall have no fixed or moveable surface directly forward of the dummy. Our client markets an accessory for use with its car seat which, for purposes of convenience, we would label as a "foam tray". This tray is made of polyurethane foam. It is not a part of the car seat and is sold totally separate and independent from the car seat. It may be affixed to the car seat by straps and velcro fasteners. It does not contain any metal or solid parts. It can be used by the parent for other purposes, but it is marketed primarily as an accessory for the car seat. The purpose of the foam tray is to give a child a surface on which to play or to put things during car rides. We believe it will keep the child occupied and thus promote the use of the seat by keeping the child happy and engaged in his own activities. It should prevent boredom on long trips in a car seat.

The foam tray is patented and our client is the licensee of the patent owner. We desire to have your interpretation as to whether our client can continue to market this tray. In the opinion of our client, it does not present a safety hazard and does not present any barrier as to whether or not a parent affixes the harness straps that are a part of the car seat.

2) Section 6.1.2 provides for the dynamic test procedure. Section 6.1.2.1.2 provides what is called "Test Configuration II", which is the test required at twenty miles per hour without the tether strap affixed and without the restraining straps of the system affixed to the dummy. One of the systems under consideration by our client would be the use of an impact shield designed to go across the front of the car seat to restrain the child. It is contemplated that the impact shield would be removeable and it would be recommended that it not be used when the car seat is in the rearward facing mode. If such is the case, then the five point harness, that is an integral part of the Strolee car seat, would be used as the restraining system. The car seat would be affixed to the car in the usual manner. Under these circumstances, your opinion is requested as to whether the Strolee car seat would be required to be tested under Test Configuration II. In this connection, your attention is respectively directed to the difference between the Strolee restraint system and the system employed by the Bobby-Mac car seat. With the Bobby-Mac car seat, when the removeable shield is taken off of the car seat, the sole restraining device that affixes the car seat to the automobile does not function properly. Such a condition does not exist in the Strolee seat. The attachment of the automobile seat belt to the car seat is totally independent of the system designed to hold the child in the car seat.

The foregoing request for your interpretation is not to be deemed our acquiesence in the legal propriety of the regulations. While our client does not contest your right to regulate the juvenile car seat, it has strong objections to the regulations themselves and, as appears from my other letter, the apparent discriminatory manner in which these regulations may be enforced.

May we please hear from you at your earliest opportunity?

One final point, in our meeting, you indicated that you will be issuing a number of interpretive opinions in response to manufacturers' inquiries of your department. We would appreciate receiving written copies of all interpretive opinions that are published by your department.

Yours very truly,

SAMUEL W. HALPER

SWH:rc

ID: nht80-3.37

DATE: 08/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Ralph J. Hitchcock; NHTSA

TO: James Monaghan

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 18, 1980, regarding your Simplified Passenger Air Bag.

We have noted the changes in your patent. If, as you say, the pads are automatically rotated into place when the occupant gets into the vehicle and closes the door and protection is provided without the occupant having to take any action, your system would be considered to be automatic (passive) within the meaning of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection.

I am placing a copy of your letter in our public docket. Thank you for your continued interest in automobile safety.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

SIMPLIFIED PASSENGER AIRBAG

The attached copy of an article from the Miami Herald of May 12, 1980, entitled "Air Bags Give Questionable Protection," draws attention to the urgency of good decisions being made regarding airbags before the "1982 Model" year.

Though the airbag method of restraint is the most resilient, most people are aware that the publicized design describes an expensive, noisy and one-shot device with many problems, and of which the public is apprehensive.

However, the new reusable patented "Monaghan Simplified Passenger Airbag" solves these problems and, in addition, solves the four other difficulties which the Miami Herald article correctly pinpoints. Refer to Monaghan Illustration Fig. 4.

Difficulty #1: "The present design provides little or no protection in side impacts." However, the Monaghan Airbag, in Patent 3,888,329, Claim 5, states, "restraint pad includes rearwardly projecting sidewalls for restraining the occupant from sidewards movement." Further protection may be had if seat upholstery is shaped to receive the sidewalls. Refer to Fig. 4, shown in phantom.

Difficulty #2: ". . . little protection against rollovers." Refer to Monaghan Illustration Fig. 4 - the airbag, when inflated, is locked by the rotor over the knees with a downward pressure of approximately 400 pounds on an area of 1.5 square feet.

Difficulty #3: Present design provides "no protection on second impact after a frontal collision when the bags deflate." Refer to Monaghan Patent 3,888,329, Claim 9. This includes "time extension means for automatically extending the period of actuation of said power means upon the sensing of a plurality of successive accident events -- during the accident."

Difficulty #4: This refers in particular to seat belts, to the danger of sliding (submarining) under the restraint in an impact. This submarining is resisted by the Simplified Passenger Airbag due to the large frictional area of pressurized contact with the torso, including the sidewalls.

These safety features are only possible with the Monaghan Simplified Passenger Airbag because, first, it is reusable and, of course, can be pre-tested. Claims 1, 5 and 8 indicate it is visibly oriented to contact the passenger's torso and limbs, at short range. When preset, the pad is partly over the occupant and the seat; the passenger will then normally be in the correct position in an accident event.

Since it is not required to explode, it is not noisy; and using ordinary air, it is not toxic. The salesman in the garage can demonstrate, and the regular garage mechanic can adjust or replace the rubber bag which should cost no more than an inner tube.

The Airpad, shown manually preset in attached illustrations, Figs. 1, 2, 3; can be alternatively automatically preset to give the fastest action in an accident event. This is provided by Differential Timing of presetting and inflating. Refer Patent Specifications, Page 8, Lines 41 and 42.

This is obtained by fitting a double-acting push button type hinge switch on the car door. With the car door open, the Airpad will be in the top storage position, held there by spring - Claim 16.

* When the car door is closed, the door hinge switch actuates an electric low-speed rotary incremental motor which swings down the pad arm through 75 degrees to the preset position and electromagnetically locks the rotor shaft.

* When the car door is opened, the hinge switch disengages the magnetic lock and the spring returns the pad to storage.

In an accident event with either system, the Sensor Switch - Claim 2 - acting with the selective control valve - Claim 4 - will supply high pressurized air - Claim 6 - to provide contacting, firm engagement of the Airbag with the occupant - Claim 19 - Test Switch #230 will have been used to adjust and lower the bag pressure via a throttle and check valve on the swing arm close to the airpad.

Return of the restraint to storage after an accident event may be timed by the Sensor Switch to allow a few seconds before automatic pneumatic deflation and reversal of the Rotor releases the passenger. Refer Patent Specifications, Page 7, Lines 30 to 35.

JAMES MONAGHAN

Simplified Passenger Airbag

Page 1, Figure 1: Shows an Auto Passive Restraint, with an inflatable air-pad, positioned in Storage when a passenger takes a seat.

Page 1, Figure 2: Passenger chose to swing the pad to a pre-set position closer to the body for visible protection against panic stops and accidents.

Page 1, Figure 3: With the pad now in the pre-set position, a sensored accident event will instantly and quietly inflate the pad with air at a safe pressure to firmly restrain the passenger with minimum shock and to lock the rotor.

Figure 4, Below: Shows the restraint remaining in storage when the passenger chooses to be inactive. In a sensored accident event, the pad automatically swings down by air rotor, inflating simultaneously to restrain the passenger.

Special Note: This sensored safety device is reusable and can be pre-tested. It will actuate whether the pad is in the storage or the pre-set position. The patent includes "sensing means for ultra-rapidly restraining a vehicle occupant from moving, with two combined restraining forces."

(Graphics omitted)

Figure 4

U.S. Patent 3,888,329 Inventor: James Monaghan

Michael M. Finkelstein -- Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, NHTSA

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

Many thanks for your letter of January 27, 1980, in regard to my Simplified Passenger Airbag. I agree that "the system would be slightly more feasible if the pads were automatically rotated into position after entering the vehicle."

If not considered a "forced action system," automatic presetting can be obtained within the cover patent #3,888,329 as follows.

Please refer to the patent specifications, Page 8, Lines 41 and 42. It states there: "If desired, differential timing between the air cushion and cylinder 208 could be provided." This is explained in the revised write-up of page one & page two, enclosed.

I agree that time-saving is very important and believe that Differential Timing will overcome the negligence of the few who might not even lower the pad to improve their vision over the dash. Also, it permits an increase in torso contact without being a hazard to a smoker. Enclosed is a revised copy of illustration Fig. 4. x

x P.S. The Simplified Passenger Airbag avoids vulnerable areas of the Torso.

I do not wish this Airbag to be used with front child seats; however, you indicate that my rear seat restraints for children have your interest.

Thank you for the Auto company addresses; I will write fully to them when I receive a reply from you.

Please confirm that the use of this door switch will permit NHTSA to retain patent 3,888,329 as a Passive Restraint. I would deeply appreciate an early reply, especially for age considerations. I am now in my eighties.

Sincerely,

James Monaghan

cc: Adminstrator Claybrook

ID: nht74-1.12

DATE: 06/11/74

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

TO: Amerace Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of May 17, 1974, with questions as to the applicability of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to your operations, and its relationship to a contract provision requested by General Motors (GM) requiring that you certify compliance of the hoses you deliver to it.

Your primary responsibility under the Act is to manufacture brake hoses that conform to 49 CFR @ 571.106, Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106. On and after September 1, 1974, pursuant to S5.2, Labeling, of that standard, each hydraulic brake hose, end fitting, and assembly shall be marked with "The symbol DOT, constituting a certification" by the hose manufacturer, fitting manufacturer, and hose assembler that each item "conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards." Since the symbol is a permanent mark on the product, certification will be furnished to anyone through whose hands it passes, whether or not it is required by @ 114 of the Act. In our view, the symbol DOT is also a "certificate" within the meaning of @ 108(b)(2) since it is the manufacturer's representation of compliance upon which other persons may rely. The contract language suggested by GM is therefore not something required by the Act.

I note however, that the amendment requested by GM is to take effect July 1, 1974, two months before you are legally required to use the DOT mark. With respect to your obligations in the interim: Under @ 114 and the certification notice published November 4, 1967, (32 F.R. 15444) an equipment manufacturer must certify conformity to "dealers" and "distributors" by a label or tag on the item itself or on the container in which it is shipped. Obviously this includes dealers and distributors to whom you sell directly.

We also consider that the manufacturer of a vehicle, such as GM, into which a hose is incorporated is a distributor of brake hoses to whom @ 114 certification must be provided. Any further requirements specified by GM in your contract would be, of course, purely a matter of contract law.

Because you are required to manufacture hoses to conform to Standard No. 106 you are legally responsible for any violation directly attributable to the manufacturing process, irrespective of any certification provided GM. The question whether that certificate relieves GM of liability cannot be answered in the abstract. As of January 1, 1975, Standard No. 106 will also apply to motor vehicles, and we do not interpret @ 108(b)(2) in this context as relieving a vehicle manufacturer of his obligation to exercise due care. Certainly, at a minimum, GM would be liable for violations attributable to installation.

You have also asked for guidance on the recall provisions of @ 111 and (Illegible Word) notification provisions of @ 113. The repurchase provisions of @ 111 come into effect upon a determination by either NHTSA or a manufacturer that there exists either a safety-related defect or a nonconformance. This section is not enforced directly by NHTSA, but affords redress to distributors and dealers in the event a manufacturer refuses to repurchase substandard vehicles or equipment items. Since a @ 108(b)(2) certificate covers only compliance and is not a guarantee of freedom from safety-related defects, it cannot have been intended "to pass the expense of recall from GM" to you when @ 111 is invoked. The @ 108(b)(2) certificate was intended only to provide protection to certificate holders from civil penalty liabilities. Liability for expenses under @ 111 or @ 113 is a contract matter between GM and you.

As for @ 113, your understanding of Mr. Vinson's remarks is essentially correct. There is a direct notification obligation under @ 113(a) only upon manufacturers of vehicles and tires. But a @ 113(e) proceeding can involve any motor vehicle equipment manufacturer as a party, who could be ordered to proceed with a @ 113(a) notification campaign upon a finding that a safety-related defect or a noncompliance exists. A brake hose manufacturer upon such a finding would be required to provide notification to aftermarket purchasers. If the component is used as original vehicle equipment the vehicle manufacturer would normally also be a party to a @ 113(e) proceeding and required to furnish notification to vehicle purchasers.

SINCERELY,

AMERACE CORPORATION,

May 17, 1974

Lawrence R. Schneider Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Pursuant to a conversation with Mr. Taylor Vinson of your office, I am requesting a written opinion relating to certain questions I have concerning the applicability of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act to our operations.

Our Swan Hose Division manufactures brake hose for, among others, the Chevrolet Motor Division of GM. We have been asked by Chevrolet to certify that the act of making each shipment pursuant to our contract constitutes certification as referred to in Section 108(B)(2) the Act (copy of certification enclosed).

Specifically, I would like to know what is our general responsibility under the Act as a manufacturer of brake hose? Does this request for certification add anything to what we are already obligated to do by the Act? I note that Section 114 apparently requires us to certify to distributors and dealers but not to manufacturers, such as GM. Do we have to certify if we sell to dealers or distributors directly?

Section 109 of the Act provides for civil penalties in situations where there is a violation. Does our certification to Chevrolet, in effect, pass the responsibility for violation on to us directly and insulate Chevrolet? Is is likely that the Administration would proceed against us directly in the case of a defect whether or not we have given the Section 108(P)(2) certification?

There are provisions in Section 111 of the Act for the recall of vehicles prior to the sale by a distributor or dealer. Is the Section 108 certification intended to pass the expense of recall from GM to us? Mr. Vinson advise me that recall is otherwise never mandatory. Can I assume that since recall is not mandatory the liability and expense for recall is a matter of agreement between Chevrolet and us and is unaffected by the Section 108 certification?

Mr. Vinson indicated that in the case of a safety-related defect the (Illegible Word) pursuant to Section 113(A) would be on the vehicle manufacturer to notify with no notification obligation on the hose manufacturer. However, in the event Chevrolet refused to recognize the safety defect, then a Section 113(E), Administrative Proceeding, might be brought against Chevrolet in which we would then be a party to the proceeding. Is there ever a situation where we have to notify dealers of a defect? Does the Section 108 certification pass the expense of notification from GM to us?

I wish to thank you, Mr. Vinson, and the other members of your staff who have been extremely helpful in assisting us in interpreting the Act.

I await your office's reply on the above questions and comments.

J. C. Vecchio Assistant Counsel

Enclosure

cc: N. P. Beveridge

AMERIACE CORPORATION SHAN HOSE DIVISION (Illegible Word) W SQUARE LK RD POB 249 BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICH. 48013

CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO.: 38550

Amendment Effective Date: 7/1/74

Date: 4/3/74

(Illegible Words) Date: 6/30/75

The (Illegible Word) contract is hereby amended as follows: FOB DUNS-017560988

Contract No. CO-23064

PLEASE ADD THE FOLLOWING CLAUSES TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTRACT:

"BY ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTRACT OR PURCHASE ORDER, IT IS AGREED THAT THE ACT OF MAKING EACH SHIPMENT PURSUANT THERETO CONSTITUTES CERTIFICATION, AS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 108 (B) (2) OF THE NATIONAL TRAFFIC AND MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY ACT OF 1966, THAT EACH ITEM IN SUCH SHIPMENT CONFORMS WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD." ALL SHIPPING CONTAINERS (INDIVIDUAL OR BULK), EXCEPT (Illegible Word) TIRES AND GLAZING MATERIALS (GLASS), PROVIDED THE ARTICLES INDIVIDUALLY HEAR THE CERTIFICATION SYMBOL SPECIFIED IN THE FOLLOWING WORDING: - CONFORMS TO APPLICABLE U. S. FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS -

THE PARTS IN THIS CONTRACT IDENTIFIED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) MUST BE PRODUCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED."

BUYER 03

Reason for Change: ADDING CLAUSES TO CONTRACT

Accepted:

AMERCE CORPORATION SWAN HOSE DIVISION

CHEVROLET MOTOR DIVISION General Motors Corporation Central Office

ID: nht74-2.21

DATE: 08/12/74

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

TO: B. F. Goodrich Aerospace and Defense Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your June 4 and June 20, 1974, letters asking if a parking brake system which locks mechanically after the brake is applied by any emergency air supply acting through the service air brake chamber would comply with Standard No. 121, Air brake systems. The parking brake provisions require in part:

S5.6.3 Application and holding. The parking brake shall be applied by an energy source that is not affected by loss of air pressure or brake fluid pressure in the service brake system. Once applied, the parking brakes shall be held in the applied position solely by mechanical means.

The arrangement described would not meet this requirement because the energy source to apply the brakes (the emergency air supply) would be affected by loss of air pressure in the service brake system. For example, any failure in the service brake piston diaphragm would cause a loss of air pressure that would in turn "affect" the energy source that applies the parking brakes. The brake chamber housing assembly is an element which is not considered to be part of the service brake system for this requirement.

I would like to point out that the provisions of Standard No. 121 do not apply to trailers manufactured before January 1, 1975.

Your truly,

ATTACH.

June 4, 1974

CHIEF COUNCIL -- U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sirs:

The following inquiry is submitted to you with regards to telephone conversations with Mr. S. F. Williams on Friday afternoon, May 31, 1974, and Monday morning June 3, 1974.

Will MVSS 121 permit actuation of a mechanically locking parking and/or emergency brake, using air that is applied to the service brake diaphragm?

The air is supplied, of course, from an isolated emergency source.

Yours truly, B. F. GOODRICH ENGINEERED SYSTEMS COMPANY A Division of The B. F. Goodrich Company;

A. J. Burt -- Sales Engineer

CC: S. F. Williams, D.O.T.; R. D. Buehler, B. F. Goodrich, Washington D. C.; C. R. Collins, B. F. Goodrich, Springfield, Virginia

B. F. Goodrich Aerospace and Defense Products

June 20, 1974

S. F. WILLIAMS -- U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sid:

Relative to our phone conversation this afternoon, attached is a copy of all the technical information we have concerning the Park-Lock brake.

The Park-Lock people that we talked to in February of this year were Mr. Joe D'Angelo and Mr. Paul Mantle.

I should note that my inquiry to the Chief Council dated June 4, 1974 and copied to you, is meant to be interpreted as a generalized question concerning the use of a service brake diaphragm. The "mechanically locking parking and/or emergency brake" was not meant to refer specifically to the "Park Lock" device, but any general device which would require actuation by emergency air applied to a service brake diaphragm, and then mechanically locking once the actuation stroke is completed.

Yours truly,

A. J. Burt -- Sales Engineer, Highway Products

CC: R. D. Buehler -- B. F. Goodrich, Washington, D.C.; C. R. Collins -- B. F. Goodrich, Springfield, Virginia

Park-Lock

(Illegible Word) PARK LOCK?

Park Lock is an Automatic Brake Holding Device that holds your brakes, once applied . . . A New Friend to the Trucks.

WHAT DOES PARK LOCK DO?

Park Lock prevents trailer roll offs; climinates wheel chocking; prevents release of brakes when service system air pressure is below safe operating level.

HOW IS PARK LOCK APPLIED?

In emergency conditions, such as loss of air, the Relay Emergency Valve applies your brakes. . . As the air leaks off, Park Lock gently applies, automatically, and holds your brakes by mechanical means.

HOW IS PARK LOCK RELEASED?

There are two ways to release Park Lock.

1. With the application of air, Park Lock releases automatically.

2. By mechanical means. No special wrench is required. Pliers, screw-driver or coin can be used.

IS PARK LOCK SAFE?

Park Lock is a true safety device. Any child can dismantle it without danger (no explosion hazard).

DOES PARK LOCK WORK ON EQUIPMENT PRESENTLY IN USE?

(Units in service prior to S-121 and September 1, 1974)

Park Lock can be installed on all trailers, new and used. The Relay Emergency Value and air tank, currently on all trailers, applies your brakes. Park Lock holds your brakes mechanically, thus preventing trailer roll-offs.

IS PARK LOCK DURABLE?

The Park Lock casting is made of especially treated aluminum, for long, tough wear. Park Lock has four movable parts that include a special brake rod. Park Lock is mounted on your present brake chamber and plumbed into the Relay Emergency Value. Installation is easy and simple. The Park Lock weighs about two pounds.

PARK LOCK AND S-121 (After September 1, 1974)

Park Lock passes all requirements under S-121, pertaining to both parking brakes and emergency brakes for your trailers. It is used in conjunction with a Relay Emergency Value and air tank (same tank used under S-121 to release the spring brake).

Park Lock works in conjunction with your New Anti-Skid Braking System and allows you to come to a complete anti-skid stop. This is accomplished by plumbing the air (emergency mode) back through the anti-skid computer valve.

Park Lock can be released from the tractor cab by the same method used to release the spring brake. As required by S-121, Park Lock has a manual release that can be released from the unit.

HOW DOES PARK LOCK SAVE YOU MONEY?

Park Lock eliminates trailer roll-off accidents. This will reduce insurance claims. . . thus reduce insurance premiums.

Park Lock virtually eliminates replacement costs. There are few moving parts.

The sole function of Park Lock is to hold your brakes, once applied; therefore there is virtually no wear on the units.

Park Lock requires very little maintenance, which eliminates down time.

Park Lock eliminates wheel-chocking and need for expensive chocks, chains, and locks.

Park Lock protects your landing gears. No more damage to the landing gear caused by hooking the tractor to the trailer, running fork lifts into the trailer while loading, etc.

(Illegible Words) FIND OUT MORE ABOUT PARK LOCK?

For more information about Park Lock write or call

PARK LOCK, INC. 8240 C Moberly Dallas, Texas 75272 (214) 381-2237

(Illegible Text)

(Graphics omitted)

INVENTORS

Woller Case William F. Benefield to and communicating with said first bore, the said brake actuating red having a series of rack teeth transversely thereof and operatively extending through said first bore and connected at one end to said power element and connected at its opposite end through a linkage to said brake crank and a spring biased pawl rod in said second bore and a salenoid coil connected into the electrical system of said vehicle and embracing said pawl rod whereby, which said salenoid coil is energized, the pawl rod is operated to (Illegible Word) the rack teeth on said brake actuating rod and restrain the same in position to set the brakes.

2. In a brake getting mechanism, as described in claim 1, the said spring actually biasing the pawl rod in retracted position to (Illegible Words) said pawl rod being extended to engage said brake actuating rod by said solenoid against the tension of said spring.

3. In a device as described in claim 1, and a collar on said pawl rod for adjusting the tension of said compression spring.

(Illegible Line)

UNITED STATES PATENTS

(Illegible Table)

GEORGE E. A. HALVOSA, Primary Examiner

UR Ct. XR 74-503; 192-3; 188-163

ID: nht78-1.42

DATE: 01/27/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Winsconsin School Bus Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 16, 1977, letter requesting again that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reinterpret its 20-inch measurement of occupant seat spacing in Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

Mr. Levin indicated in an earlier response to your letter that seat spacing is measured at the point of greatest distance separating the seats. This measurement is used to ensure that impact forces do not exceed the forces the seat is designed to sustain or absorb. To measure as you suggest would require redesigning school bus seats to ensure their ability to sustain or absorb increased impact loads.

The NHTSA has received a number of complaints on seat spacing in school buses manufactured in compliance with the subject regulations. We have met with most of the major school bus manufacturers discussing production seat spacings and the Federal requirements. The agency has found that manufacturers are producing buses with seat spacings which are, in some cases, 3 inches less than the maximum specified by the regulations. These large reductions in seat spacing result principally from manufacturers' choices in designing the seats. Such seat spacing reductions are not found in all seats designed to meet the regulations.

Through its monitoring of the standard's implementation, the NHTSA has discovered that manufacturers are not achieving the maximum seat spacing that the agency had contemplated at the maximum seat spacing that the agency had contemplated at the time the regulation was issued. The installation of seats in school buses cannot be done with the precision that the NHTSA had anticipated. Accordingly, manufacturers in their attempts to ensure they do not violate the 20-inch space requirement must design seat spacing as much as an inch short of the 20-inch spacing allowance. The result is seat spacing which is less than the agency contemplated. The NHTSA has taken expeditious action to alleviate this problem.

On December 20, 1977, NHTSA issued an Interim Final Rule amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222 by increasing the maximum allowable distance from the seating reference point to the seat back from 20 to 21 inches. The agency intended that the measurement be approximately 20 inches. A seat spacing specification of 21 inches permits 20-inch spacing by taking manufacturing tolerances into account. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing this change in the rule was also issued on December 20, 1977.

SINCERELY,

Wisconsin SCHOOL BUS Association

October 16, 1977 Administrator Joan Claybrook Nat'l Hwy. Traffic safety Adm. 400 7th St. S.W.

REFERENCE: NOA-30

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

We are in receipt of a letter from NHTSA Chief Counsel Joseph J. Levin Jr., in response to our request for an interpretation of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection.

In his letter of October 7, 1977, Mr. Levin advises us of a similar request for an interpretation on the measurement of school bus seat spacing by Gillig Bros., Hayward, California, (manufacturers of school buses) on September 13, 1976. Gillig Bros. were informed that, according to an interpretation of Standard No. 222 by the NHTSA, the measurement of seat spacing must be made from the seating reference point to the surface of the seat back - exclusive of portions which protrude from the basic contour of the surface.

We would suggest that this query by Gillig Bros. to the NHTSA was a very typical request by a manufacturer wishing to receive a clarification on a specification or regulation. We are not aware that manufacturers, users of school buses, or the NHTSA envisioned, at that time in 1976, that a very serious problem in seat spacing would be created by the performance standards of Standard 222 which control seat design . . . . and in that light suggest the possibility that the NHTSA responded to the 1976 Gillig Bros. query with a clarification of the measurement for seat spacing, rather than a formal interpretation on the subject.

In this intervening period since September of 1976, seat designs have been established, conforming to the criteria of Standard No. 222. School buses, built to the federal construction standards effective April 1, 1977, began to appear in the marketplace.

Prospective purchasers throught the Nation were appalled by the restricted knee-room available to the seated passengers. Widespread opposition to this restricted seat spacing has mounted rapidly as more and more school district administrators and school bus contractors view the "new school bus" for the first time and endeavor to seat the upper-grade students in the confined seating.

The immediate effects have been that school boards have recinded local ordances limiting the age of equipment used for pupil transportation; school bus contractors have revised operational policies and, instead of adhering to their normal vehicle replacement programs, intend to obtain longer utilization of school buses in their fleets by upgrading maintenance programs; and school bus passengers are resisting any but the shortest of rides in those seats with their cramped, restricted seating space.

The result is that school boards, school bus contractors, and school bus body manufacturers are recognizing that the new school bus seating will discourage, to a great extent, the transportation of other than children in the lower/middle grades. Passengers will shun these vehicles like the plague for extra-curricular activities and field trips. The opposition to these seats will force school boards to look elsewhere for other types of transportation for these activities. Manufacturers of school bus bodies recognized this possibility long ago, as they viewed the seat spacing mandated by Standard 222, and submitted a petition to the NHTSA for a special sub-classification of school bus - an activity bus with greater seat spacing - that would replace the conventional school bus for these and other activities.

Our school districts - our communities - cannot withstand the tremendous expense of another separate bus fleet this "activity bus" petition would create. Our school districts will not be able to withstand the opposition they will experience against utilization of the "new" school bus with its restrictive seat spacing; but at the same time, their budgets will be incapable of withstanding the alternative . . . . separate bus fleets, taxicabs, payment for pupil transportation by parents.

Our industry realizes that the seats designed to conform to Standard 222 have thicker cushioning; that the same number of seats as was installed in a "pre-April 1, 1977" school bus requires a longer bus body on the new bus. Our industry realizes that allowing a greater seat spacing may require an even longer bus body, or perhaps fewer rows of seats in the bus . . . . but the alternatives are far beyond our school district budget's ability to underwrite.

It is for these reasons that we suggest the questions facing you today are far different than those posed to the NHTSA in September of 1976. It is for these reasons that we respectfully suggest that the NHTSA, recognizing that the question of seat spacing today has far greater implications than in 1976, may wish to allow an immediate relief from the problem through the expediency of a permissive interpretation that would permit school bus manufacturers to measure the knee-room distance at a point where the seat back components are the closest.

May we once again request your considerations for this prmissive interpretation? It is the opinion of the Wisconsin School Bus Association, representative of Wisconsin's pupil transportation industry - and other pupil transportation industry members and representatives throughout the Nation - that this permissive ability would be an important and immediate interim answer to this perplexing and serious problem.

Dick Rechlicz Executive Secretary

ID: nht88-1.60

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Telex Communications, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Bill Hunt, Project Engineer Telex Communications, Inc. 8601 Northeast Highway 6 Lincoln, NE 68505

Dear Mr. Hunt:

This letter responds to your inquiry of November 3, 1987, in which you enclosed a diagram to show the relationship between your company, Telex Communications, Inc. (Telex or your company), and a Telex customer you designated as Company XYZ (or your custo mer). As I understand your diagram, Telex manufactures a trailer which it sells to Company XYZ. Company XYZ then delivers the trailer to its subcontractors, Companies ABC and DEF, who install items such as generators and communications equipment. Your l etter suggests that you are uncertain about your company's certification responsibility. It is your company's position that as an incomplete vehicle manufacturer, you should provide the document specified in 49 CFR @568.4(a). On the other hand, your cust omer asserts that as the incomplete vehicle manufacturer, Telex must assume legal responsibility for the incomplete vehicle under 49 CFR @568.7(a), and certify the vehicle's compliance under Part 567. On a number of occasions, you spoke with Joan Tilghma n of my staff on the matters raised in your letter.

On the diagram enclosed with your letter, you state that the trailers Telex delivered to Company XYZ are equipped with "running gear, brakes, lights, etc." Telex assigns a VIN, gross axle weight rating, and a gross vehicle weight rating to each railer it delivers to Company XYZ. You are concerned because two contractors with whom you have no relationship add equipment to the trailer after you deliver it to your customer.

First, having reviewed the drawing of the trailer and the narrative information in your letter it is not clear to me whether your trailers are, in fact, incomplete vehicles. You may wish to provide me with information that more completely describes your trailer so that I may give a more definitive answer to your question. A photograph showing the trailer as it is delivered to Company XYZ would be helpful. However, I shall be as responsive as I can be given the information you supplied in your letter.

If the trailers are incomplete vehicles, then Part 568 would not compel your company to certify the trailers' compliance with all applicable Federal safety standards. Under @568.7, Telex may elect to assume legal responsibility for all the certification duties and liabilities imposed on a manufacturer under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and affix the certification label as specified in @567.5(e). But if Telex decides against assuming certification responsibility, then it must supply the incomplete vehicle document specified in @568.4.

If the trailers are completed vehicles which are converted to a different use by Company XYZ through its subcontractors, you must certify them irrespective of whether your customer contracts to have other equipment added to the vehicles after delivery. T he fact that your customer contracts to have a generator and communications equipment added does not mean that the vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended function. The determination of whether a vehicle requires further manufacturing operations to perform its intended functions is not a subjective inquiry into what use the particular person to whom the vehicle is delivered intends to make of the vehicle. In previous interpretations, we have explained that the question is whether the particular vehicle type (e.g., trailer, van) requires further manufacturing operations to perform the customary functions that an ordinary purchaser would expect of this vehicle type.

For example, a van that is delivered to a dealer ready for road use is a completed vehicle, even if the dealer intends to send it to a van converter to have different equipment (seats, refrigerators, etc.) installed before selling the van to a retail cus tomer. Similarly, the trailer your company delivers to Company XYZ is a completed vehicle if it needs no further manufacturing operations to perform the functions an ordinary purchaser would expect of a trailer.

Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Vehicle Safety Act), a complete vehicle manufacturer's certification responsibilities apply up to the vehicle's first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. It appears from your let ter that Company XYZ purchases your trailers for purposes other than resale, and that after its purchase, Company XYZ subcontracts with two other companies to add a generator and communications equipment to the trailers. If my assumptions are correct, th en the two subcontracting companies have no certification responsibilities under the Vehicle Safety Act, because they are modifying vehicles after their first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale.

The only limitations on the modifications those subcontractors can make to the trailers is set out in S108(a) (2) (A) of the Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a) (2)(A)). That section states that:

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

If Company XYZ's subcontractors are "manufacturers," "distributors," "dealers," or "motor vehicle repair businesses" within the meaning of @108 (a) (2) (A), they may not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment or designs that T elex installed in the trailers in compliance with an applicable Federal safety standard.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any further questions on this subject, or wish to provide additional information about the particular relationships that here the subject of this letter, please feel free to contact Ms. Tilghman at th is address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

November 3, 1987

Chief Counsel - NHTSA 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attention: Ms. Erika Z. Jones

Dear Ms. Jones:

I am writing to you concerning the interpretation of CFR 567 and 568 regarding ultimate responsibility for DOT certification.

I have spoken with Joan Tilghman concerning this. She suggested I write to you explaining the circumstances. Please review the enclosed information. I will call soon to discuss this further. Thank you.

Sincerely,

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. Hy-Gain Division

Bill Hunt Project Engineer

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS,INC.

The parties:

Telex Communications - Trailer manufacturer Customer: Company XYZ

Company ABC - Generator Manufacturer & Installer Customer: Company XYZ

Company DEF - Radio Equipment Manufacturer & Installer Customer: Company XYZ

Company XYZ - Buyer of trailer & additional Installed equipment.

TELEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Lincoln, NE.

Manufactures a trailer with running gear, brakes, lights, VTN, etc. Total vehicle wt = 8000/9000#

Axle rating - 9000# ea., 18,000# total

Telex work is complete.

Telex' Customer, XYZ has permanent components added to trailer by two other sub contractors (after delivery from Telex). There are items such as generators (1) & communications equipment (2). Telex is aware of general nature and weight and location of added equipment. These factors have been used to determine trailer design. However, Telex does not have any contractual relationship with the other subcontractors. Telex does not install and is not responsible for the installation of the added equipment.

The problem: Certification of trailer.

Telex' position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer and should provide documentation as stipulated in CFR 568.4a.

XYZ's position:

Telex is an incomplete vehicle manufacturer that assumes legal responsibility as in CFR 568.7a. and is responsible for final vehicle certification per 567.5e.

ID: nht94-2.91

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Standard Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to John E. Gillick (Std. 214 and Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) hereby petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for the purpose of compliance with t he side impact standard's phase-in calculation. n1 In the alternative, Lamborghini petitions NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption from the side impact standard requirements until September 1, 1996, pursuant to its authority under 49 C.F.R. @ 555.

n1 Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese (BO)-via Modena, 12-Italy, is a joint stock company organized under the laws of Italy. Chrysler Corporation, on January 31, 1994, sold Lamborghini to a group of investors led by MegaTech Lt d., a Bermuda corporation.

Background

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA promulgated revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 regarding side

2

impact protection. See 55 Fed. Reg. 45,722 (Oct. 30, 1990) (codified at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214). Standard 214 specified vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified streng th requirements for side doors. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214(b). The standard included the following phase-in schedule: (1) at least 10% of a manufacturer's passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1994, must comply; (2) at least 25% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1995, must comply; and (3) at least 40% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and before September 1, 1996, must comply. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214 S8. In promulgating the rule, NHTSA recognized that it could take single-line manufacturers up to three years to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to comply with the standard. 55 Fed. Reg. at 45,749. Accordingly, Standard 214 provides an alternative to the phase-in option. The standard permits manufacturers to delay implementation of the side impact protection standard for one year (until September 1, 1994) if after that date all vehicles produced meet the standard's re quirements. 49 C.F.R. @ 5711.214 S1(d).

As noted supra, Lamborghini was sold by Chrysler on January 31, 1994. Chrysler, as the corporate parent of Lamborghini, had included Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for side impact protection compliance purposes. Due to the number of differe nt Chrysler models that required modifications to meet Standard 214, Chrysler elected to comply through the phase-in alternative. Lamborghini vehicles were scheduled to be modified during the last year of the phase-in period because

3

of the relatively low number of vehicles the subsidiary produced and the lead time necessary for engineering and tooling modifications.

Discussion

Chrysler's sale of Lamborghini has placed Lamborghini in a difficult position regarding compliance with the side impact safety standard. Prior to the sale, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing that it would not need to meet the requiremen ts of Standard 214 until the production year beginning September 1, 1996 due to its status as part of Chrysler's vehicle fleet. Now that Lamborghini is not part of the Chrysler fleet, the company cannot utilize this flexibility. While the first segment of the phase-in requirement (10% compliance for all passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993) has already passed, Lamborghini still could elect Standard 214's alternative compliance date that requires full compliance by September 1, 1994. However, Lamborghini does not now have sufficient lead time to complete the engineering analysis and implement the tooling changes to comply with the standard for the production year beginning either September 1, 1994 or September 1, 1995. In addition, since Lamborghini only produces one model, it cannot phase in compliance even if this were technically possible and the first year of the phase-in period had not already begun. Accordingly, Lamborghini respectfully requests NHTSA to grant this petition to enable Chrysler to count Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's fleet for purposes of side impact compliance, or in the alternative, grant Lamborghini a temporary exemption from the requirements of Standard 214. Granting either request would be in the

4

public interest as it will not affect overall motor vehicle safety because Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance, thereby ensuring that, consistent with the objectives of the Nati onal Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the total number of vehicles meeting the side impact requirements will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its Lamborghini subsidiary.

I. FLEET AVERAGE CALCULATION.

As part of the contract with MegaTech, Ltd. for the sale of Lamborghini, Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance. This action will ensure that the overall number of vehicles com plying with the standard through the phase-in period will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its subsidiary. This approach gives Lamborghini, a single line manufacturer, the three-year lead time needed to develop and implement the engineering chang es necessary to satisfy the standard's requirement envisioned in the preamble to the final rule. All Lamborghini vehicles produced after September 1, 1996, will satisfy Standard 214.

II. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.

In the alternative, Lamborghini requests NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption to Standard 214 through August 31, 1996, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 555.6(a). In the meantime, as noted above, Chrysler will include, for purposes of production vo lume compliance, all Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's phase-in calculations. Beginning September 1, 1996, all Lamborghini vehicles produced will fully comply with the standard.

5

The application of Standard 214 to Lamborghini without adequate leadtime would subject the company to substantial economic hardship. In order to comply with this standard, Lamborghini must modify the door structure and redesign the aperture and door for its automobiles. In view of the extremely short lead time between now and the beginning of production for next year's model, it is simply not possible to complete the necessary engineering and related retooling necessary to meet the September 1, 199 4, target date in the regulations.

Lamborghini is confident, however, that it will be able to comply with the standard by September 1, 1996, but not sooner, in accordance with the following schedule:

1. May 1994 - 1995

- engineering, drawing and development of preliminary prototypes.

2. June 1995 - May 1996

- final tune-up tests, and modification of production tooling.

3. July 1996

- begin production of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

4. September 1996

- delivery of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

The estimated cost of the research and development and the tooling changes necessary to meet the new standards is estimated to be between

6

We would reiterate that the financial hardship this action would cause is primarily due to the absence of sufficient leadtime to implement this standard. Lamborghini had only recently begun analysis of the engineering changes necessary to meet the sta ndard and has not yet begun to implement the necessary tooling changes and purchasing because, until the sale occurred, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing it would not have to meet the standard until September 1, 1996.

* * *

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Michael J. Grossman, our designated agent for U.S. certification and regulatory liaison (516-829-8694) or John Gillick of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, our legal counsel (202-775- 9870), if you have any questions about this petition.

Enclosures

ID: nht75-6.16

DATE: 06/13/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; James B. Gregory; NHTSA

TO: S.L. Terry, Vice President

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

S. L. Terry, Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs Chrysler Corporation P. O. Box 1910 Detroit, MI 48231

Dear Mr. Terry:

This responds to your letter of May 13, 1975, requesting confirmation that Chrysler's new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a "window shade" tension adjustment feature satisfies the requirements of S7.1.1 of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, that the lap belt portion "adjust by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor." You describe the seat belt assembly as of the single retractor, continuous loop type, with a B-pillar-mounted "window shade" emergency-locking retractor, and a one-way locking device in the buckle tip which prevents return of webbing to the lap portion from the torso portion when the belt assembly is in use.

Section 7.1.1 requires adjustment of the lap belt portion "by means of an emergency-locking or automatic-locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits some single retractor, continuous loop systems as long as the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap bolt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the submarining danger of a slack lap belt, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

One restriction, set forth in a letter to Renault, Inc., on September 25, 1972, is that "the friction in the buckle is low enough that the normal motion of the occupant against the shoulder bolt cinches up the lap belt."

We would like to clarify that letter by emphasizing that, to conform to the requirements, the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjustable." Thus, it is the manufacturer who determines whether or not the particular bolt system is designed to satisfy the requirements of the standard. In your May 16, 1975, demonstration to Messrs. Hitchcock, Nelson, Medlin, Smith, Breedon, and Ziegler of the NHTSA, we saw no evidence of design deficiency in limited use of that continuous loop system.

The other restriction was set out in a March 9, 1973, letter to General Motors. It limits the use of "comfort clips" on the upper torso portion of continuous loop systems. The letter distinguishes continuous loop systems from systems that have separate lap and shoulder belt retractors. It concludes that "a comfort clip would be acceptable under S7.1.1 of the standard, so long as the shoulder belt is otherwise capable of adjustment as required by S7.1.1."

This restriction has since been the subject of an NHTSA proposal (Docket No. 74-32, Notice 1) which would restrict the use of "a device used to limit retractive action of an emergency-locking retractor for the comfort of the occupant" to seat belt assemblies that have "an individually adjustable lap belt." Chrysler's response to that proposal and stated plan to introduce a continuous loop belt system with a "window shade" device in the new 1976 model four-door compact car assume that NHTSA intends to permit "belt tension relief" devices on all continuous loop systems. I would like to point out that this issue is still outstanding in Docket No. 74-32.

Sincerely,

(original stamped by)

James B. Gregory Administrator

May 13, 1975

Dr. James B. Gregory Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20591

Dear Dr. Gregory:

Chrysler Corporation plans to introduce a new unibelt shoulder/lap belt system with a "window shade" tension adjustment feature for the front seat outboard seating positions during the 1976 model year. We plan to introduce this system initially in the 4-door models of our all-new compact car, and later in the model year incorporate the system in all of our other 1976 model 4-door cars, including station wagons. As indicated in my letter dated November 7, 1974 (commenting on Docket 74-32, Notice 1, based on discussions with the Administration), we understand that a unibelt system with a "window shade" adjustment feature will conform to current MVSS 208 requirements provided it otherwise complies with MVSS 209. Because the modifications to proposed Docket 74-32 are still pending and we have not yet received written confirmation of our understanding, we hereby request that the Administration review our unibelt system and provide us with written response indicating that it complies with the regulations. Since we must make commitments for final tooling almost immediately, we request your review as soon as possible.

The system consists of a continuous webbing loop with a vehicle deceleration sensitive emergency-locking retractor located in the B-pillar. The webbing is routed from the retractor to a roof rail mounted turning loop, across the occupant's upper torso to the buckle tip, across his lap and down to the floor anchor. To encourage belt usage by making them more comfortable to wear, we have incorporated a "window shade" feature in the retractor to relieve objectionable shoulder belt tension. A slight extension of the shoulder belt provides slack in the shoulder belt; a second extension of the belt releases the slack.

To maintain lap tension when shoulder belt tension has been relieved by using the "window shade" in the retractor, we have incorporated a one-way locking device in the buckle tip. This permits the belt webbing to be pulled through the buckle tip by the retractor, but prevents webbing movement in the opposite direction. It also permits the user to tighten the lap belt beyond the tension created by the retractor, if he likes a snug lap belt.

We believe that this system is a significant step forward in the design of seat belt systems. Initially, it makes the belt buckle tip easier to find since it normally stows near the roof rail rather than near the floor between the door and seat. It is easier to buckle up because the motion required by the occupant to extend the webbing from the single retractor is more nearly linear. After buckling up, the occupant can easily relieve shoulder belt tension by moving forward slightly and then returning to his normal sitting position. If the occupant wishes, greater tension can be placed and maintained in the lap belt by pulling the shoulder belt upward. Moreover, this system is automatically and conveniently stored by tripping the "window shade." It also eliminates the lap belt cinch- up problem associated with auto-locking retractors which many customers find objectionable. Because this new design will encourage the use of seat belts and as we are able to work out the problems of application of the system of other car models, we expect to offer this system on our 2-door models.

Based on our interpretation of the requirements of MVSS 208 and MVSS 209, and our understanding of the letters of interpretation issued by the NHTSA to Renault dated September 25, 1972, and to General Motors dated March 27, 1975, we believe our new system fully complies with the applicable requirements of both standards. With respect to the issue raised in those letters, we have designed the one-way lock-up feature in the buckle tip of our system to allow self-adjustment of the lap belt by the retractor. When the occupant does not snug the lap belt, our testing experience indicates that normal occupant motions will cause the slack in the system to be taken up by the retractor.

Based upon this description of our new unibelt lap/shoulder belt system that we plan to use during the 1976 model year, we request a letter of confirmation of our interpretation that this system complies with the requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. If considered desirable, we would be happy to demonstrate this new system in one of our vehicles.

Very truly yours,

CHRYSLER CORPORATION

(original signed by)

S. L. Terry Vice President Public Responsibility and Consumer Affairs

/ms

ID: nht76-1.13

DATE: 07/09/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Moto Villa, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your May 27, 1976, letter concerning the application of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 106-74, Brake Hoses, to brake hose assemblies that you import and contemplate importing for use on motorcycles.

I understand that you presently import brake hose assemblies for use only on off-road, moto-cross motorcycles. These assemblies are not "motor vehicle equipment" as that term is defined in Section 102(4) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1391(4)) (the Act). Therefore, they are not subject to any requirements of Standard No. 106-74.

The other assemblies that you contemplate importing for onroad use, however, are subject to the standard. Your letter indicates that the manufacturer of the assemblies is prepared to affix bands to them, certifying that they meet all the performance requirements of the standard, but that he is not yet able to obtain hose and end fittings that are labeled pursuant to S5.2. The relief that you have requested, however, is found in S12, which reads as follows:

Brake hose assemblies manufactured from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976. Notwithstanding any other provision of this standard, a brake hose assembly manufactured during the period from March 1, 1975, to August 31, 1976, shall meet each requirement of this standard, except that the assembly may be constructed of brake hose which meets every requirement of the standard for hose other than the hose labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1, and the assembly may be constructed of end fittings which meet every requirement of the standard for end fittings other than the end fitting labeling requirements of S5.2, S7.2, and S9.1.

You should note that the critical date for application of this section is the assembly's date of manufacture, rather than that of importation.

Please note further that Section 110(e) of the Act requires every manufacturer who offers a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate a permanent resident of the United States as his agent upon whom service of all processes, orders, notices, decisions, and requirements may be made.

You state in your letter that the brake system products that you plan to import are manufactured by Gri Me Ca S.P.A. In order to comply with section 110 of the Act it is necessary that Gri Me Ca designate an agent in the United States for service of process. There is no requirement in the Act that a motor vehicle importer, located in the United States, designate an agent.

In order for the designation to be effective, it is necessary that the procedural requirements of 49 CFR 551.45 (enclosed) be fulfilled by the submission of the following information:

1. A certification that the designation is valid in form and binding on the manufacturer under the laws, corporate by-laws, or other requirements governing the making of the designation at the time and place where it is made;

2. The full legal name, principal place of business and mailing address of the manufacturer of the brake system components;

3. Marks, trade names, or other designations (Illegible Word) origin of any of the manufacturer's products which do not bear his name;

4. A statement that the designation shall remain in effect until withdrawn or replaced by the manufacturer;

5. A declaration of acceptance duly signed by the agent appointed, which may be an individual, a firm, or a U.S. corporation; and

6. The full legal name and address of the designated agent.

In addition, the designation must be signed by one with authority to appoint the agent; the signer's name and title should be clearly indicated beneath his signature.

If you have any questions concerning these requirements, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

May 27, 1976

Mark Schwimer -- Office of Chief Council, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin

Dear Mark,

I would like to thank you for your assistance regarding the Brake hose standard, S106.

MotorVilla, Ltd. is the exclusive importer of products manufactured by Gri Me Ca S.P.A. 40068 S. Lazzaro Di Savena, Bolona Italy. Gri Me Ca is a small speciality manufacturer of wheels and brake products. They have not sold products into the United States until Jan. 1976 when we became their distributor. Moto Villa is involved in off road motorcycle racing and imports the Villa line of moto cross motorcycles. We have been promoting the Gri Me Ca brakes on our dirt track racers, and for sale to others for dirt track racing.

This product is not readily adaptable to on-road vehicles for several reasons. If a motorcycle doesn't already have disc brakes the entire wheel assembly must be changed including drum, disc, sprocket, rim, etc. Once this has been changed the complicated mounting problem must be tackled. Without a machine shop one could not even think about making this change. If the motorcycle happens to have disc brakes, and someone were to attempt to replace their equipment with ours, they would meet two big problems. First complicated bracketry must be fabricated to adopt our product, then the problem of different threads on the hose must be taken on. I think it is a fair statement that no one is likely to use our products for on-road use.

However, we are considering some other products that Gri Me Ca makes for on-road use. This is the main reason that we would like to get the D.O.T. requirements satisfied. We have sent a copy of Standard S106 to the manufacturer and they have informed us that they have gone through their testing procedure and have passed all the tests. They have indicated to us that this information was supplied to the Italian manufacturers using their product on their motorcycles. We have asked for a copy of this datum.

Gri Me Ca has said they can certify to the standard, however it will take several months to obtain the brake line and fitting with the correct labeling. They indicate that they have the ability to band the assemblies almost immediately with the proper information. We would like to request that they be allowed to do this possibly under S12 or S13.

Gri Me Ca was never made aware of the exacting labeling standards required in the U.S. until we provided them with the text. Their only exposure seems to have been to the performance standards, which Moto Guzzi or one of the other manufacturers provided them. They are being very cooperative and working very hard to do what is needed to be in full compliance with our laws.

We would like to request on their behalf that while new hose and fitting are being manufactured that they be allowed to "band" their current assemblies, which meet all other requirements of this standard except for the labeling. They will start shipping assemblies with all proper labeling as soon as they receive the parts to build complete assemblies. They will not attempt to use up their non labeled assemblies, but will sell them in countries other than the U.S.

Please let me know what other information you may need to facilitate our complying with the standard.

Sincerely,

Charles R. Cheatham -- General Partner, Moto Villa, Ltd.

ID: nht94-5.34

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: Gianfranco Venturelli -- Director General, Automobile Lamborghini

TO: Christopher A Hart -- Deputy Administrator, NHTSA

COPYEE: J. Womack

TITLE: FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Standard Petition

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8/5/94 from John Womack to John E. Gillick (Std. 214 and Part 555)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Hart:

Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. (Lamborghini) hereby petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to permit Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler) to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for the purpose of compliance with the side impact standard's phase-in calculation. n1 In the alternative, Lamborghini petitions NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption from the side impact standard requirements until September 1, 1996, pursuant to its authority under 49 C.F.R. @ 555.

n1 Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A., 40019 Sant'Agata Bolognese (BO)-via Modena, 12-Italy, is a joint stock company organized under the laws of Italy. Chrysler Corporation, on January 31, 1994, sold Lamborghini to a group of investors led by MegaTech Ltd., a Bermuda corporation.

Background

On October 30, 1990, NHTSA promulgated revisions to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 214 regarding side

2

impact protection. See 55 Fed. Reg. 45,722 (Oct. 30, 1990) (codified at 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214). Standard 214 specified vehicle crashworthiness requirements in terms of accelerations measured on anthropomorphic dummies in test crashes and specified strength requirements for side doors. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214(b). The standard included the following phase-in schedule: (1) at least 10% of a manufacturer's passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993, and before September 1, 1994, must comply; (2) at least 25% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1994, and before September 1, 1995, must comply; and (3) at least 40% of passenger cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1995, and before September 1, 1996, must comply. 49 C.F.R. @ 571.214 S8. In promulgating the rule, NHTSA recognized that it could take single-line manufacturers up to three years to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to comply with the standard. 55 Fed. Reg. at 45,749. Accordingly, Standard 214 provides an alternative to the phase-in option. The standard permits manufacturers to delay implementation of the side impact protection standard for one year (until September 1, 1994) if after that date all vehicles produced meet the standard's requirements. 49 C.F.R. @ 5711.214 S1(d).

As noted supra, Lamborghini was sold by Chrysler on January 31, 1994. Chrysler, as the corporate parent of Lamborghini, had included Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for side impact protection compliance purposes. Due to the number of different Chrysler models that required modifications to meet Standard 214, Chrysler elected to comply through the phase-in alternative. Lamborghini vehicles were scheduled to be modified during the last year of the phase-in period because

3

of the relatively low number of vehicles the subsidiary produced and the lead time necessary for engineering and tooling modifications.

Discussion

Chrysler's sale of Lamborghini has placed Lamborghini in a difficult position regarding compliance with the side impact safety standard. Prior to the sale, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing that it would not need to meet the requirements of Standard 214 until the production year beginning September 1, 1996 due to its status as part of Chrysler's vehicle fleet. Now that Lamborghini is not part of the Chrysler fleet, the company cannot utilize this flexibility. While the first segment of the phase-in requirement (10% compliance for all passenger cars produced on or after September 1, 1993) has already passed, Lamborghini still could elect Standard 214's alternative compliance date that requires full compliance by September 1, 1994. However, Lamborghini does not now have sufficient lead time to complete the engineering analysis and implement the tooling changes to comply with the standard for the production year beginning either September 1, 1994 or September 1, 1995. In addition, since Lamborghini only produces one model, it cannot phase in compliance even if this were technically possible and the first year of the phase-in period had not already begun. Accordingly, Lamborghini respectfully requests NHTSA to grant this petition to enable Chrysler to count Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's fleet for purposes of side impact compliance, or in the alternative, grant Lamborghini a temporary exemption from the requirements of Standard 214. Granting either request would be in the

4

public interest as it will not affect overall motor vehicle safety because Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance, thereby ensuring that, consistent with the objectives of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the total number of vehicles meeting the side impact requirements will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its Lamborghini subsidiary.

I. FLEET AVERAGE CALCULATION.

As part of the contract with MegaTech, Ltd. for the sale of Lamborghini, Chrysler has agreed to include Lamborghini vehicles in its vehicle fleet for purposes of Standard 214 compliance. This action will ensure that the overall number of vehicles complying with the standard through the phase-in period will be the same as if Chrysler had not sold its subsidiary. This approach gives Lamborghini, a single line manufacturer, the three-year lead time needed to develop and implement the engineering changes necessary to satisfy the standard's requirement envisioned in the preamble to the final rule. All Lamborghini vehicles produced after September 1, 1996, will satisfy Standard 214.

II. TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.

In the alternative, Lamborghini requests NHTSA to grant the company a temporary exemption to Standard 214 through August 31, 1996, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. @ 555.6(a). In the meantime, as noted above, Chrysler will include, for purposes of production volume compliance, all Lamborghini vehicles in Chrysler's phase-in calculations. Beginning September 1, 1996, all Lamborghini vehicles produced will fully comply with the standard.

5

The application of Standard 214 to Lamborghini without adequate leadtime would subject the company to substantial economic hardship. In order to comply with this standard, Lamborghini must modify the door structure and redesign the aperture and door for its automobiles. In view of the extremely short lead time between now and the beginning of production for next year's model, it is simply not possible to complete the necessary engineering and related retooling necessary to meet the September 1, 1994, target date in the regulations.

Lamborghini is confident, however, that it will be able to comply with the standard by September 1, 1996, but not sooner, in accordance with the following schedule:

1. May 1994 - 1995

- engineering, drawing and development of preliminary prototypes.

2. June 1995 - May 1996

- final tune-up tests, and modification of production tooling.

3. July 1996

- begin production of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

4. September 1996

- delivery of automobiles in compliance with new Standard 214.

The estimated cost of the research and development and the tooling changes necessary to meet the new standards is estimated to be between

6

We would reiterate that the financial hardship this action would cause is primarily due to the absence of sufficient leadtime to implement this standard. Lamborghini had only recently begun analysis of the engineering changes necessary to meet the standard and has not yet begun to implement the necessary tooling changes and purchasing because, until the sale occurred, Lamborghini had a good faith basis for believing it would not have to meet the standard until September 1, 1996.

* * *

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please contact Michael J. Grossman, our designated agent for U.S. certification and regulatory liaison (516-829-8694) or John Gillick of Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, our legal counsel (202-775-9870), if you have any questions about this petition.

Enclosures