ID: 1983-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 06/14/83

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mack Trucks, Inc. -- S. Robson, Sr. Project Engineer - Vehicle Regulations

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOA-30

Mr. S. Robson Sr. Project Engineer - Vehicle Regulations Mack Trucks, Inc. P.O. Box 1761 Allentown, Pennsylvania 18105

Dear Mr. Robson:

This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation concerning the test procedures of Safety Standard No. 207. You ask whether a seat in a heavy duty truck must remain in its adjusted position when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat, if the seat has been tested and remains in its adjusted position when subjected to a load of 20 times the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat.

This question arises because of the configuration of some heavy-duty truck seats which include suspension fixtures (pedestal structures) on which the upper seat section rests. Safety Standard No. 207 requires seats to withstand a load equal to 20 times their weight and requires the seats to remain in their adjusted position during the required loading (paragraph S4.2). The upper seat sections and adjusters of your truck seats are tested on rigid test beds by the seat manufacturer and reportedly comply with the adjuster provision of S4.2. However, when you test these seats in the actual vehicle (applying 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including pedestal), the center of gravity falls on the seat adjuster and the seat does not always stay in its adjusted position during loading.

In answer to your specific question, the seat must remain in its adjusted position when tested to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, as required by paragraph S4.2 of the standard. We would agree with you, however, that with a seat configuration such as you describe, the adjusters and upper seat section would never experience a loading of 20 times the weight of the entire seat in an actual crash. Your problem appears to arise because the center of gravity of this seat happens to fall on the seat adjusters and the standard requires the loading to be applied through the center of gravity. The purpose of this loading requirement, however, is to ensure the integrity of the entire seat as it is attached to the vehicle structure.

Therefore, it is our opinion that for a pedestal seat such as you describe, a manufacturer could establish due care through a combined test procedure which would load the seat adjusters and upper seat section to only 20 times the weight of those components to determine if the seat would remain in its adjusted position, and which would load the seat as anchored to the vehicle structure to 20 times the weight of the entire seat, including the pedestal.

Please contact Hugh Oates of my staff if you have any further questions (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

April 29, 1983

Office of General Council, NHTSA

Gentlemen:

Subject: Clarification of Seat Testing Procedure FMVSS 207

Mack Trucks, Inc., a major manufacturer of heavy duty trucks is requesting an interpretation and clarification of the seat test procedure appearing in Sections 4 and 5 of 49 CFR Part 571.207 -Standard No. 207; Seating Systems.

The typical structure of the vast majority of seats used in heavy duty trucks is considerably different than those used in passenger cars. Note the comparisons on the attached sheet. In a passenger car, the fore/aft (longitudinal) adjuster is typically at the bottom of the seat between the seat and the floor of the vehicle body (see Figure 1). In a heavy duty truck, the adjuster is typically above the suspension mechanism of the seat and below the upper seat section (see Figure 2). In an actual 20g acceleration, the adjuster on the typical passenger car seat would experience the force of the mass of the entire seat being accelerated (or decelerated). However, on a typical heavy duty truck seat the adjuster would experience the force of only the upper seat section (perhaps about 40% of the total seat weight) being accelerated (or decelerated) at 20g.

Mack Trucks, Inc. is not a manufacturer of the seats used on our vehicles; they are manufactured by outside vendors. These outside vendors test and certify the seats supplied to Mack Trucks, Inc. for compliance with FMVSS's 207, 210 and 302.

However, these certifications are made with the seats mounted to rigid test beds, not in an actual cab. Mack Trucks, Inc., in exercising due care in its installation of seats, performs its own compliance testing of each new seat or seat belt mounting in an actual truck cab. Because of the basic difference in seat structure between a passenger car seat and a truck seat, it is necessary that a fixture be welded to the seat as close as possible to the actual vertical c.g. (center of gravity) of the entire seat. This fixture is used to attach the hydraulic mechanism necessary to apply the 20g load to the seat. In many instances, the vertical c.g. of the seat is approximately at the same height as the seat adjusters. When attaching this fixture to the seat, it quite often becomes necessary to attach it to brackets that are part of the upper seat section. In doing so, the 20g load for the entire seat is being transmitted through the fore/aft adjusters. As mentioned earlier, the fore/aft adjusters would not "see" this much load in an actual 20g acceleration (or deceleration). It would "see" only 20 times the weight of the upper seat section. Therefore, in testing the seat with the fixture attached to the upper seat section, the adjusters would be greatly overloaded from their design load and may not remain in their adjusted position.

The question that Mack Trucks/ Inc. poses to the NHTSA is this: Would it be considered as not meeting the test requirements of FMVSS 207 if a seat, when tested with a load of 20 times the weight of the entire seat being applied through the adjusters for the upper seat section, does not remain in its fore/aft adjusted position, even if the adjusters have been tested and certified from the vendor for compliance when subjected to the load of 20 times just the weight of the adjustable upper section of the seat?

As you can appreciate, the answer to this question will affect our current test procedures and therefore, we request a timely response. If additional information is required or you wish to discuss the problem further, please contact this office.

Very truly yours,

MACK TRUCKS, INC.

S. Robson Sr. Project Engineer - Vehicle Regulations

SR:bh

Attachment Omitted.

ID: nht94-7.36

DATE: March 17, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Steven R. Taylor -- S.R. Taylor Toys (Porterville, CA)

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to fax dated 11/10/93 from Steven R. Taylor to NHTSA

TEXT:

This responds to your FAX to Mary Versailles of this office asking whether your Original Designer Seatbelt Strap (ODSS) would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) issued by this agency. Also referenced are your telephone conversations with Mary Versailles and Walter Myers. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You described the ODSS as a strip of "D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing" with double-sided adhesive tape on the under side and silk-screened designs on the front side. The tape has a backing that peels off, exposing the adhesive, and the ODSS is then applied to the existing seat belt. The ODSS comes in both child and adult models. The child's model, which is intended to be applied to the belt portion of a child restraint system, is 15 inches long and 1 1/2 inches wide with cartoon characters silk-screened on its face to entertain the child. The adult model, which is intended to be applied to a vehicle safety belt, is 30 inches long and 2 inches wide with silk-screened designs on its face to serve as a reminder to buckle up. The promotional material you sent with your inquiry indicated that the ODSS is an aftermarket product that "serves only as an entertainment piece and not as a safety device."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. S1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self-certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Neither the Department of Transportation (DOT) nor NHTSA approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product.

I note that you do not explain what you mean by the term "D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing." This agency does not use that term. We assume you mean that the webbing is the same as that used by vehicle manufacturers for the safety belts used to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misunderstood as an approval by DOT of the webbing, we ask that you refrain from using the term in your promotional materials.

Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

(A)ny system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component OR AS ANY ACCESSORY, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. if the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the ODSS, this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, the entire portion of the expected use of the ODSS relates to motor vehicle operation. Also, the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicle.

While the ODSS is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

We urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts or child restraint systems. For example, you should ensure that your product does not interfere with safety belt retraction, that the adhesive on the back of the ODSS does not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing, and that the ODSS does not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to be labeled on the webbing. I also note that safety belt webbing is designed to have some "give" to help absorb crash forces. If the ODSS was to make the webbing too stiff, it could raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Again, we encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether the ODSS would degrade the flammability performance of seat belts.

A commercial business that installs the ODSS system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles/motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides 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 applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the ODSS renders inoperative the vehicle's or child restraint system's compliance with the FMVSS's. The render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that owners make to their own vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicle or equipment. In addition, individual states have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles or equipment, so you might wish to consult state regulations to see whether your device would be permitted.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: 9314r

Mr. Steven R. Taylor
S. R. Taylor Toys
1065 North Maston
Porterville, CA 93257

Dear Mr. Taylor:

This responds to your FAX to Mary Versailles of this office asking whether your Original Designer Seatbelt Strap (ODSS) would be affected by any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) issued by this agency. Also referenced are your telephone conversations with Mary Versailles and Walter Myers. I apologize for the delay in this response.

You described the ODSS as a strip of "D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing" with double-sided adhesive tape on the under side and silk-screened designs on the front side. The tape has a backing that peels off, exposing the adhesive, and the ODSS is then applied to the existing seat belt. The ODSS comes in both child and adult models. The child's model, which is intended to be applied to the belt portion of a child restraint system, is 15 inches long and 1 1/2 inches wide with cartoon characters silk-screened on its face to entertain the child. The adult model, which is intended to be applied to a vehicle safety belt, is 30 inches long and 2 inches wide with silk- screened designs on its face to serve as a reminder to buckle up. The promotional material you sent with your inquiry indicated that the ODSS is an aftermarket product that "serves only as an entertainment piece and not as a safety device."

I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

By way of background information, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. 15 U.S.C. 1381, et seq. (Safety Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The Safety Act establishes a self- certification system in which manufacturers are responsible for ensuring that their products comply with all applicable FMVSSs. Neither the Department of Transportation (DOT) nor NHTSA approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product.

I note that you do not explain what you mean by the term "D.O.T. standard nylon seat belt webbing." This agency does not use that term. We assume you mean that the webbing is the same as that used by vehicle manufacturers for the safety belts used to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, since the meaning of the term is unclear and might be misunderstood as an approval by DOT of the webbing, we ask that you refrain from using the term in your promotional materials.

Section 102(4) of the Safety Act defines, in relevant part, the term "motor vehicle equipment" as:

[A]ny system, part, or component of a motor vehicle as originally manufactured or any similar part or component manufactured or sold for replacement or improvement of such system, part, or component or as any accessory, or addition to the motor vehicle ... (emphasis added).

In determining whether an item of equipment is considered an accessory, NHTSA applies two criteria. The first criterion is whether a substantial portion of the expected use of the item is related to the operation or maintenance of motor vehicles. We determine a product's expected use by considering product advertising, product labeling, and the type of store that retails the product, as well as available information about the actual use of the product. The second criterion is whether the product is intended to be used principally by ordinary users of motor vehicles. If the product satisfies both criteria, then the product is considered to be an "accessory" and thus is subject to the provisions of the Safety Act.

Applying these criteria to the ODSS, this product would be an accessory and thus an item of motor vehicle equipment under the Safety Act. Based on our understanding of the product, the entire portion of the expected use of the ODSS relates to motor vehicle operation. Also, the product would typically be used by ordinary users of motor vehicles.

While the ODSS is an item of motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA has not issued any standards for such a device. Nevertheless, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect the manufacture and sale of your product. You as the product's manufacturer are subject to the requirements in sections 151- 159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that the manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a product contains a safety related defect, the manufacturer would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

We urge you to evaluate carefully whether your product would in any way degrade the performance of vehicle safety belts or child restraint systems. For example, you should ensure that your product does not interfere with safety belt retraction, that the adhesive on the back of the ODSS does not cause deterioration of the safety belt webbing, and that the ODSS does not obscure the information required by FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to be labeled on the webbing. I also note that safety belt webbing is designed to have some "give" to help absorb crash forces. If the ODSS was to make the webbing too stiff, it could raise safety concerns. Finally, you should be aware that originally-installed safety belts must meet the requirements of FMVSS 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. Again, we encourage you to evaluate your product against the requirements of this standard to ascertain whether the ODSS would degrade the flammability performance of seat belts.

A commercial business that installs the ODSS system would also be subject to provisions of the Safety Act that affect modifications of new or used vehicles/motor vehicle equipment. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)) provides 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 applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard.

This means that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business must not install your device if the ODSS renders inoperative the vehicle's or child restraint system's compliance with the FMVSS's. The render inoperative prohibition does not apply to modifications that owners make to their own vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade any safety device or system installed in their vehicles or equipment. In addition, individual states have the authority to regulate modifications that individual vehicle owners may make to their vehicles or equipment, so you might wish to consult state regulations to see whether your device would be permitted. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:571 d:3/17/94

ID: 07-002869--21 Aug 07

ID: 1985-01.45

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/07/85

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Jeffrey R. Miller; NHTSA

TO: Stephen T. Waimey, Esq; Dean Hansell, Esq., Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Irvine

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 8/30/79 letter from F. Berndt to Alfa Romeo

TEXT:

Stephen T. Waimey, Esq. Dean Hansell, Esq. Donovan Leisure Newton & Irvine 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071

Dear Messrs. Waimey and Hansell:

I am responding to your correspondence regarding the definitions of "convertible" and "open body type vehicle" under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) safety regulations.

Your first question concerns the definition of "open body type vehicle." Our regulations provide a definition at 49 CFR S571.3: "...a vehicle having no occupant compartment top or an occupant compartment top that can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience." The common usage of that term in our interpretations is that this term is intended to apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles, such as Jeep-type vehicles. Thus, neither of the automobiles in the pictures that you included with your letter (Porsche 911 Carrera Cabriolet and Porsche 911 Carrera Targa) are considered to be open-body vehicles.

You also ask whether the Porsche 911 Targa is considered a convertible. You state that there is no fixed, rigid structural member joining the "A" pillar with the "B" pillar. Despite this absence, the Targa roof, beginning behind the "B" pillar, apparently is a fixed, rigid structural member that meets Federal roof-crush standards.

You are correct in stating that our regulations do not expressly define "convertible." NHTSA interpretations, however, have consistently defined "convertible" as a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rear roof support rearward of the "B" pillar position) by a fixed, rigid structural member. Thus, the Porsche 911 Targa is considered a convertible because it meets this definition. While the vehicle is therefore not required to meet the roof-crush standards, it is commendable that Porsche has designed it to do so.

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

Sincerely,

Jeffrey R. Miller Chief Counsel

January 4, 1985

Frank Berndt, Esq. Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Berndt:

We represent Dr. Ing. h.c.F. Porsche AG ("Porsche") and on behalf of Porsche we seek your comments about apparent ambiguities in the regulations. These regulations are relevant to certain research and development work being done by Porsche.

Specifically, the definition of "open-body type vehicle" and the usage of that phrase and of the undefined term "convertible" in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards are unclear. This leaves open questions as to (1) whether the Porsche 911 Cabriolet and the Porsche 911 Targa are "open body-type vehicles" and (2) whether the Porsche 911 Targa is a "convertible." (Pictures of both vehicles are attached to this letter). The following is our understanding of the applicable law and identifies the ambiguities as we see them.

(1) Open-body Type Vehicle. Section 571.3 of the NHTSA regulations, 49 C.F.R. S 571.3, defines an "open-body type vehicle" as "a vehicle having no occupant compartment top or an occupant compartment top that can be installed or removed by the user at his convenience." One interpretation of this definition is that the concept of a "removable" top includes a convertible top that can be folded down. However, the use of the term in NHTSA regulations suggests that the term is limited to vehicles that are usually manufactured with no doors and/or windshield or removable doors and/or windshield, such as four-wheel drive utility vehicles, and other specialty vehicles, and is this not intended to include convertible passenger cars such as the Porsche Cabriolet.

For example, in at least 3 cases, open-body type vehicles are treated separately from convertibles. Section 571.114 of the regulations exempts from the requirements of paragraph S4.5 of Safety Standard Number 114 (theft protection) only "open-body type vehicles that are manufactured for operation without doors and that either have no doors or have doors that are designed to be easily attached to and removed from the vehicle by the vehicles owner." Section 571.212 exempts "open body type vehicles with fold-down or removable windshields" from Safety Standard Number 212 (windshield mounting). Section 571.219 exempts "open-body type vehicles with "fold down" or removable windshields" from Safety Standard Number 219 (windshield zone intrusion). Conversely, Section 571.208 of the regulations exempts both "convertibles and open-body vehicles" from the requirements of paragraph S4.1.1.3.1 of Safety Standard Number 208 (occupant crash protection).* Similarly, the test conditions set forth in Section 571.208 provide (at paragraph S8.1.6) that for the frontal, lateral and roll-over tests "convertibles and open-body type vehicles have the top, if any, in place in the closed passenger compartment configuration." Finally, Section 571.205, as recently amended (at paragraph S5.1.2.4), prohibits glass and plastic glazing materials from being used in "convertibles, in vehicles that have no roof or in vehicles whose roofs are completely removable.***

Similarly, NHTSA Federal Register notices suggest that an open-body type vehicle is different than a convertible. In granting Anden Holdings Ltd. a temporary exemption from Safety Standard Numbers 104 and 201

* Section 571.208 provides (at paragraphs S4.1.1.3.2 and S4.1.2.3.2) that "convertibles and open-body type vehicles shall utilize either a Type l or a Type 2 seatbelt assembly.

** This second half of this reference appears to be a paraphrase of the definition of "open-body type vehicle."

(windshield wiping and washing systems and occupant protection in interior impact), because it is an open-body type vehicle, acting NHTSA Administrator Steed stated "the Auburn replica, as is true of many open-body vehicles, has no header and the windshield frame is too narrow to support a sun visor mounting." See 47 Fed. Reg. 34, 071 (1982). Further, discussion appears at both 46 Fed. Reg. 32,251 (1981) and 45 Fed. Reg. 85,450 (1980) about whether to exempt open-body type vehicles with readily removable or no doors from the key-in-ignition warning requirements of safety Standard Number 114 (theft protection).

Finally, use of the term "convertible" in Sections 571.210, 571.216, and 571.302 of the Regulations without the term "open-body type vehicle" suggests that a convertible is not an open-body type vehicle.

In view of the context in which the term "open-body type vehicles" has been used in NHTSA regulations, it thus appears that neither the Porshce 911 convertible nor the Porsche 911 Targa are intended to be considered "open-body type vehicles." It may be that this result is achieved because a convertible top is not completely removable (i.e., it is only folded down) and the Targa top actually leaves most of the roof in place (in the same way that a "T-top" roof does). however, because this matter is not clear, Porsche would appreciate your comments on the regulatory intent of these terms.

(2) The Porsche 911 Targa as a Convertible. You wrote a letter on August 30, 1979, to Alfa Romeo concluding that the term "convertible" is not defined in NHTSA regulations though it is apparently described or defined elsewhere. (For your convenience I attach a copy of the August 30, 1979 letter). The letter concludes:

"While our regulations do not include a formal definition of "convertible," the agency has stated that it considers a convertible to be a vehicle whose "A" pillar or windshield peripheral support is not joined with the "B" pillar (or rearward support rearward of the "B" pillar position) or by a fixed, rigid structural member."

In our research, we could not locate the source for that definition.

Also, as far as we could determine, the regulations still do not define the term "convertible." The term is, however, used four times in Section 571.208 (at paragraphs S4.1.1.3.1, S4.1.1.3.2, S4.1.2.3.2. and S8.1.6), and once each in Section 571.108 (paragraph S4.3. 1.8), in Section 571.205 (paragraph S5.1.2.4), in Section 571.216 (paragraph S3), and in Section 571.302 (paragraph S4.1). In each instance, no information about the meaning of "convertible" is given. Since the Porsche 911 Targa's "A" pillar is not joined with its "B" pillar, it thus appears that it might meet the definition of a "convertible." On the other hand, since the Targa roof (which begins at the B pillar position and continues by means of the rear glass window to the rear body deck) is a fixed, rigid structural member that provides the Targa with a roof from that point to the rear (which roof meets regulatory roof-crush standards), where the entire roof is non-structural, thus does not necessarily apply.*

* We note that there may be another undefined class of vehicles evolving, a class consisting of partially covered vehicles such as the "T"-top, cars with sun roofs and the Targa. Perhaps our focus in distinguishing between only convertibles, open-top vehicles and coupes is too narrow. For example, Section 571.205 (at paragraph S5.1.2.4) provides that glass-plastic glazing materials may not be used in convertibles. This prohibition does not apply to vehicles with sun roofs or "T"-tops, 48 Fed. Reg. 52,062 (1983), because "the probability that the plastic side of the glazing in those vehicles would be directly exposed to the sun over a prolonged period is particularly small due to the installation angle of the windshield and restricted path of the sunlight through the opening in the top of the vehicle." Id. However, because of the presence in the Targa of a fixed structural roof from the B-pillar areas rearwards, the plastic side of the glazing would not be directly exposed to the sun. Thus, in at least in this area, the Targa might more reasonably be considered as a member of a "T"-top/Targa class of vehicles.

Thank you for your courtesy and assistance.

Yours truly,

Stephen T. Waimey

Dean Hansell Enc: August 30, 1979 letter from NHTSA to Alfa Romeo. Omitted Here

ID: Cyr.1

Mr. Leo M. Cyr
Vice President, NGA Auto Glass Division
National Glass Association
8200 Greensboro Drive, Suite 302
McLean, VA 22102-3881

Dear Mr. Cyr:

This responds to your letter to Dr. Jeffrey Runge, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which you asked a number of questions regarding NHTSAs regulations and other issues of concern to the automotive glass industry. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. In order to simplify our reply, we repeat each of the questions presented in your letter below, followed by our response.

(1) We understand the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) do apply to factory installation of auto glass on vehicles destined for sale in interstate commerce. Do these same FMVSS regulations (specifically FMVSS 212, 216 and [219]) apply:

a.)  Once the new vehicle is purchased by a consumer?
b.)  When auto glass is damaged in the aftermarket?
c.)  To the individual states being required to enforce the FMVSS and, if so, how are the regulations enforced?

Response:

By way of background, we note that NHTSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 to promulgate Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Most safety standards issued by the agency apply only to new vehicles. However, certain "equipment standards" apply to new parts and equipment, whether they are installed in new vehicles or sold in the aftermarket. A manufacturer must certify that its motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment meets the requirements of all applicable FMVSS before being sold to a consumer for the first time.

The primary standard related to automotive glass is FMVSS No. 205, Glazing Materials. As an equipment standard, a manufacturer of glazing intended for use in a motor vehicle must certify that its products meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 205. However, as your question suggests, other FMVSS also relate to glazing materials, including FMVSS No. 212, Windshield Mounting, FMVSS No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, and FMVSS No. 219, Windshield Zone Intrusion, which are vehicle standards.

To address the first part of your question, the Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to vehicles and motor vehicle equipment after their first sale to a consumer. However, once a vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment has been sold to a first purchaser for purposes other than resale, a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not "knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard."49 U.S.C. 30122(b). In general, this "make inoperative" prohibition requires businesses that modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety features installed in compliance with applicable standards.

In those cases where an item of glazing is damaged and replaced, the replacement glazing must meet the requirements of Standard No. 205. This is because all replacement glazing must meet, and be certified by its manufacturer as meeting, the requirements of FMVSS No. 205, which is an equipment standard. Failure of a repair business to install replacement glazing that complies with this standard would be a violation of the prohibition on selling motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with applicable FMVSSs (see 49 U.S.C. 30112).

However, the vehicle with the new replacement glazing would not have to comply with the vehicle standard requirements of FMVSS Nos. 212, 216, or 219. A manufacturer is not required to assure that a vehicle remains in compliance after it has been sold for purposes other than resale. Moreover, a repair business that replaced the damaged glazing would not violate the "make inoperative" prohibition, because the object or event that damaged the windshield in the first place had already rendered the glazing "inoperative" with respect to these standards. Repair businesses are not required to restore a damaged vehicle to its original level of performance.

Finally, responsibility for enforcing the federal motor vehicle safety standards resides with this agency. NHTSA randomly purchases products and tests them in accordance with our regulations. A test failure may lead to an investigation and a recall of noncompliant equipment. States may only enact provisions relating to the same aspect of performance covered by a federal motor vehicle safety standard if the provision is identical to the federal standard.

(2) What is NHTSAs specific position, if any, on the repair (as opposed to replacement) of rock chip damaged windshields? If such a position exists, does it include or, in some way limit, the repair of long cracks?

Response:

NHTSA is responsible for the promulgation and enforcement of performance standards to ensure the safety of motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. We do not specify when or how repairs are conducted on a vehicle.

(3) Has the NHTSA reviewed the auto glass industrys voluntary Auto Glass Replacement Standard (www.AGRSS.com) and, if so, does the NHTSA have a position on that standard?

Response:

We are aware of the automotive glass industrys voluntary Auto Glass Replacement Standard, which provides detailed procedures for the proper installation of glazing. By invitation of the National Glass Association, NHTSA participated as an observer in a related Industry Code Practices/Standard meeting on September 18, 1998. However, we have not taken a position with regard to that standard, because as discussed above, we do not specify when or how repairs are conducted on a vehicle.

(4) Can the NHTSA provide a citation for their internal study that stated 82 people per day were injured or killed as a result of being ejected from their motor vehicles during crashes, and, if data available through your office that quantifies the number of individuals who were ejected through the windshield; through a side glass; or, through a door that opened during the crash? And, further, can your office advise (if such detail is not available in the current study) whether such detail is being considered for future studies?

Response:

We are not aware of the "internal study" to which this question refers. However, the statistics cited appear to approximate the number of serious injuries and fatalities that result from rollover crashes (not necessarily due to ejection). Using 1995-1999 data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS), we estimate that, on average, 253,000 light vehicles were involved in a tow-away, rollover crash each year, and that 27,000 occupants of these vehicles were seriously injured, equating to about 74 serious injuries per day (see Federal Register notice on Consumer Information Regulations; Rollover Resistance, 66 FR 3388 (Jan. 12, 2001) (Docket No. NHTSA-2000-8298)).

Focusing more specifically on the issue of ejection, in August of 2001, NHTSA published a final report entitled, "Ejection Mitigation Using Advanced Glazing," which presented research conducted by the agency. That report again studied crashes in the 1995-1999 NASS database. The report estimated that approximately 7,800 people are killed and 7,100 people are seriously injured each year because of partial or complete occupant ejections through glazing. This document can be found on NHTSAs website at: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/PDF/nrd-11/glazingreport.pdf. Specifically, Table 1.3 of the report provides statistics for ejection routes. NHTSA will continue to consider and update this information as part of our door lock and ejection mitigation research programs.

(5) Does the Bush Administration have plans to encourage states that have repealed all or part of their periodic motor vehicle inspection (PMVI) programs to reinstate PMVI?

a.)  During the 1970s and 1980s, anti-PMVI forces argued effectively that no one could prove PMVI saved lives. Has the NHTSA conducted any studies that compare accident or personal injury rates before and after PMVIs repeal?

Response:

While we recognize the importance of owners maintaining the safety systems in their vehicles, NHTSA currently has no plans to encourage States to implement PMVI programs, as the data do not indicate that PMVI should be an agency priority. The agencys current priorities include:impaired driving, safety belts, rollover, crash compatibility, and traffic records and data. NHTSA has not conducted, nor are there plans to conduct, research on the effectiveness of PMVI programs.

(6)Does NHTSA have any plans to revise the FMVSS regulations to more clearly reflect the materials and designs used in todays vehicles?

Response:

NHTSA periodically reviews our Federal motor vehicle safety standards on a 7-year cycle. As part of that review, we consider advancements in materials and designs used in current vehicles. FMVSS No. 205 is part of this periodic reassessment process.

The following provides one recent example of our efforts to improve the safety of glazing used in motor vehicles. On July 25, 2003, NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS No. 205 to incorporate the 1996 American National Standards Institute standard that deals with the safety performance of safety glass and safety glazing.

(7) Does the NHTSA receive and compile consumer requests for improved auto glass performance?If so, would that information be available to the National Glass Association?

Response:

On occasion, NHTSA receives petitions for rulemaking to improve automotive glass performance. These petitions are made available to the public through the Department of Transportations Docket Management System (DMS), which can be accessed at http://dms.dot.gov. For example, all petitions submitted to the agency in calendar year 2004 are posted in Docket No. NHTSA-2004-16856 for public review. However, NHTSA has not received any glazing-related petitions to date in 2004.

NHTSA also sometimes receives information related to automotive glass performance through consumer complaints submitted to NHTSAs Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). Such information is compiled in ODIs complaint database, which includes reports concerning glazing materials. These reports can be obtained from NHTSAs website at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/ by entering relevant search terms.

Enclosed is a copy of a reference document entitled, "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment," which you may find useful. If you have any further questions, please contact Eric Stas of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:205
d.7/7/04

ID: 2514y

Ms. Marcia M. Avis
1697 Latham
Birmingham, MI 48009

Dear Ms. Avis:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking about Federal regulations that apply to "an accessory seat pad" for booster seats and child restraint systems. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter describes your product as a fabric seat cushion which is intended to provide comfort and head support to a child when the child is sleeping in the restraint system. You state that the cushion would be "held in place" on the seat with "the strap system inherent to the booster seat along with the weight of the child on the seat."

There is currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standard that is directly applicable to the product you wish to manufacture and sell. Our standard for child restraint systems (Standard No. 213) applies only to new systems and not to aftermarket components of a child restraint system, such as an aftermarket seat-pad.

However, there are other Federal laws that indirectly affect your manufacture and sale of the seat-pad. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with defects relating to motor vehicle safety. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your seat-pads contain a safety related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

If your product would be installed by commercial businesses instead of child seat owners, those businesses would have to do so in a manner consistent with section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act. The provision states: "No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative ... 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 ..." Thus, this provision prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers or motor vehicle repair businesses (i.e., any person holding him or herself out to the public as in the business of repairing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for compensation) from installing your seat-pad if the addition of your product would negatively affect the compliance of a child restraint with Standard 213 and if the installing business were aware of that effect.

There are elements of design incorporated in a child restraint system pursuant to Standard 213 that may be affected by installation of a seat-pad. For example, Standard 213 sets flame-retardant performance requirements for materials used in a child restraint system. (See paragraph S5.7 of Standard 213, referencing Standard 302, Flammability of Interior Materials (copy enclosed).) Installation of rapidly burning materials could vitiate the compliance of the child restraint with FMVSS No. 213. Section 109 of the Act specifies a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each violation of 108.

In addition, Standard 213 sets crash protection requirements for all new child restraint systems. It is unclear from your letter whether the seat-pad has provision for passing the belt systems of a child restraint around or through the pad and cushion. If the installation of your seat-pad would impair the function of a belt installed to restrain the child, then any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business installing the seat-pad would likely be regarded as having knowingly rendered inoperative a Federally required element of design in child restraint systems, in violation of 108(a)(2)(A).

The prohibitions of 108(a)(2)(A) do not apply to the actions of a vehicle owner in adding to or otherwise modifying his or her vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. Nevertheless, this agency urges you to voluntarily ensure that your seat-pad would not render inoperative the crash protection and flammability resistance of any child restraint.

I hope this information is helpful. Please contact us if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

/ref:213 d:5/3l/90

ID: 11409.MLS

Mr. Milford R. Bennett, Director
Safety Affairs and Regulations
General Motors Corporation
30200 Mound Road
Box 9010
Warren, MI 48090-9010

Dear Mr. Bennett:

This responds to your request for the agency to clarify the thermal performance requirements in FMVSS No. 135, Passenger Car Brake Systems. Your specific question is what pedal force may or must be used during cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles for purposes of establishing allowable pedal force for thermal testing. As discussed below, it is our opinion that a vehicle must meet thermal test requirements at or below the average pedal force that achieves the shortest stopping distance during cold effectiveness tests conducted in accordance with the standard's test procedures.

The provisions in S7.5 set forth the cold effectiveness test for passenger car braking. That provision requires that the vehicle be capable of stopping within 70 meters from a speed of 100 kph with a brake pedal force that does not exceed 500 Newtons. Pursuant to S6.5.3.2, unless otherwise specified, the vehicle is to be stopped in the shortest distance achievable (best effort) on all stops.

As you correctly stated, the average pedal force used during the cold effectiveness test establishes the allowable average pedal force (and thus the stringency) for the hot performance test in S7.14 and the recovery performance test in S7.16. Specifically, S7.14 requires a vehicle with heated brakes to be capable of achieving at least 60% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force recorded during that cold effectiveness stop, while S7.16 requires the vehicle to be capable of achieving between 70% and 150% of the deceleration obtained during the best cold effectiveness stop, with an average pedal force that does not exceed the average pedal force used during that cold effectiveness stop.

According to your letter, this test protocol is straightforward for testing non-ABS- equipped vehicles, but may be unclear with respect to testing ABS equipped vehicles. You stated that in testing ABS-equipped vehicles, GM rapidly applies and holds a constant 500 Newton pedal force throughout the cold effectiveness stop. You further stated that the presence of ABS allows the driver to apply a constant 500 Newton pedal force, stay within the standard=s wheel lock constraints, and meet the 70 meter stopping distance requirement. You stated that a problem arises because a lower pedal force could be used to match or possibly improve the stopping distance compared to a constant 500 Newton pedal force. This is so because at the 500 Newton level, the ABS would cycle to prevent excessive wheel lock, whereas a 400 Newton average level could result in an equivalent stopping distance if the driver modulated the braking force to avoid wheel lock and ABS cycling. You claimed that the pedal force difference would be unimportant for the cold effectiveness test since any force at or under 500 Newtons could be used to meet those requirements. However, it would be crucial in establishing the allowable pedal force and associated stringency for the hot performance and recovery performance tests. You stated that this could lead to compliance disputes between NHTSA and a vehicle manufacturer.

You suggested three alternatives to clarify the pedal force that may or must be used when conducting cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles:

(1) Allow a constant 500 Newton pedal force for cold effectiveness testing of ABS-equipped vehicles, notwithstanding the requirement in S6.5.3.2 to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance;

(2) Rewrite the thermal assessment provision of FMVSS No. 135 to use constant pedal force stops at the onset of the thermal sequence, rather than the pedal force obtained in the cold effectiveness stops, as the baseline for thermal performance assessment; or

(3) Stipulate that the pedal force used during cold effectiveness testing can exceed neither 500 Newtons nor the pedal force necessary to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance.

You recommended that NHTSA adopt Option #1 for a near term solution of this testing issue, and Option #2 as the longer term solution. You believe that Option #1 is practical, objective, repeatable, and provides a well defined pedal force constraint for the subsequent thermal tests. You acknowledged that there is a drawback to this option, i.e., that it may not result in a comparison of braking performance based upon the lowest possible average pedal force for the cold effectiveness stop. You stated that Option #2 would require rulemaking and the associated delay to implement. You stated that Option #3 would provide the intended "apples-to-apples" comparison of cold versus hot brake performance. You stated, however, that this option is not practical from a testing standpoint, since, for an ABS-equipped vehicle, a test driver could not be expected in the allowed six cold effectiveness stops to determine the minimum pedal force yielding the shortest possible stopping distance.

We anticipate that test drivers will utilize a variety of pedal forces during the six cold effectiveness stops in an effort to achieve the shortest possible stopping distance consistent with the test procedures. The average pedal force that resulted in the shortest stopping distance of

these six tests would be used to ascertain compliance with the thermal and recovery performance requirements under S7.14 and S7.16. If, as you suggest, the shortest distance can be achieved at more than one average pedal force level (e.g., if the ABS cycles at a variety of pedal forces below 500 Newtons, or the test driver is able to modulate braking forces to avoid wheel lock while matching the stopping performance of the ABS system), the vehicle must be capable of satisfying the thermal and recovery performance requirements at all such average pedal force levels.

This is consistent with the agency=s long-standing view that, as a general matter, when a standard does not specify a particular test condition, there is a presumption that requirements of the standard must be met at all such test conditions. This presumption may be rebutted if the language of the standard as a whole or its purposes indicate an intention to limit the unspecified test conditions to a particular condition or conditions. However, nothing about Standard No. 135 or its purposes provides a reason to limit the range of average pedal forces.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

ref:135 d:5/16/96

ID: nht95-5.56

DATE: August 7, 1995

FROM: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TO: John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREY CLOCK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I need to obtain some clarification regarding the FMVSS302 Flammability specification. The specification states the following information:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an addition U-shaped frame, wider that the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10-mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

What material does the above mentioned statement pertain to. Currently, Moriden America is testing the following types of materials and need to determine if it is acceptable to use wires during the test:

* Flat Woven * Double Raschel * Tricot * Moquette

All of these materials also are laminated by two types of foam backings, CK scrim and 780 Dow Film. The material's thickness varies from 0mm to 8mm. I would appreciate if you could determine if the material should be tested with wires.

If you have any questions, please call.

ID: nht95-6.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: August 7, 1995

FROM: Karey Clock -- Moriden America, Inc.

TO: John Womack

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 9/25/95 LETTER FROM JOHN WOMACK TO KAREY CLOCK (A43; REDBOOK 2; STD. 302)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Womack:

I need to obtain some clarification regarding the FMVSS302 Flammability specification. The specification states the following information:

A specimen that softens and bends at the flaming end so as to cause erratic burning is kept horizontal by supports consisting of thin, heat resistant wires, spanning the width of the U-shaped frame under the specimen at 1-inch intervals. A device that may be used for supporting this type of material is an addition U-shaped frame, wider that the U-shaped frame containing the specimen, spanned by 10-mil wires of heat resistant composition at 1-inch intervals, inserted over the bottom U-shaped frame.

What material does the above mentioned statement pertain to. Currently, Moriden America is testing the following types of materials and need to determine if it is acceptable to use wires during the test:

* Flat Woven * Double Raschel * Tricot * Moquette

All of these materials also are laminated by two types of foam backings, CK scrim and 780 Dow Film. The material's thickness varies from 0mm to 8mm. I would appreciate if you could determine if the material should be tested with wires.

If you have any questions, please call.