ID: aorc3.ogm

Mr. Steven R. Fredin
Chairman
Automotive Occupant Restraints Council
c/o Autoliv N.A., Inc.
1320 Pacific Drive
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Dear Mr. Fredin:

This responds to your recent letter to Clarke Harper of our Office of Crashworthiness Standards regarding certain provisions of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and the compliance test procedures adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with respect to that standard.

Sections S4.3(j)(1) and S5.2(j) of Standard No. 209 provide that an emergency-locking retractor must lock before the webbing extends 25 mm (1 in.) when the webbing is subjected to an acceleration of 7 m/s² (0.7 g) within a period of 50 milliseconds (ms). You ask if the 0.7 g acceleration must be constant, if there is an allowable tolerance for the acceleration, if the 0.7 g must be maintained over a certain duration of time, and whether the acceleration trace is allowed to have a certain level of decay or declining acceleration during the test.

After providing background information with respect to the requirements applicable to manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment and NHTSA's testing of those items, I will respond to your specific question about the test conditions and procedures applicable to the retractor requirements of Standard No. 209.

Congress has authorized the NHTSA to issue FMVSSs applicable to new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment (49 U.S.C.  30111). NHTSA, however, does not approve or endorse motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, the statute establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet all applicable safety standards (49 U.S.C.  30112, 30115). NHTSA then conducts compliance tests of selected products to determine whether the products, in fact, comply with applicable requirements, usually utilizing test facilities under contract to the agency.

Each FMVSS specifies performance requirements for the vehicles or equipment to which the standard applies. In addition to the test conditions and procedures set forth in the FMVSSs themselves, NHTSA provides instructions, known as "compliance test procedures" or "laboratory test procedures" (TP), for use by the test facilities with which the agency enters into contracts to conduct compliance tests. One purpose of the TP is to provide a standardized testing and data recording format among the various contractors that perform testing on behalf of the agency, so that the test results will reflect the performance characteristics of the product being tested, rather than differences between testing facilities.

The TP, of course, must not be inconsistent with the test procedures and conditions that are set forth in the relevant safety standard. However, the TP generally provides additional detail beyond what is set forth in the relevant FMVSS. In some cases, the TP does not refer to all of the performance requirements established by a standard, and in other cases it may direct the test facility to conduct a test at a lesser stringency than that set out in the standard. Nevertheless, the agency has repeatedly advised both manufacturers and the public that a TP does not limit the requirements of an applicable FMVSS, and each TP reiterates that principle.

While manufacturers are not required to conduct certification tests in any particular manner, any manufacturer that wishes to base its certification of compliance on a test procedure that is different from that included in the standard must necessarily assess whether the results of the alternative test procedure are good predictors of the results of the test procedure specified in the standard.

In the instant case, the agency believes that the provisions of S4.3(j)(1) and S5.2(j) are very clear. Under these sections, an emergency-locking retractor must, when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of 0.7 g within a period of 50 ms, lock before the webbing extends more than 25 mm (1 in.). Nothing in the standard purports to require a constant acceleration (or a constant rate of increase of acceleration), to establish a specific period during which the acceleration must be maintained, or to prohibit any "decay" after the 0.7 g level is reached. Therefore, each retractor must be able to meet the locking requirements of the standard regardless of the rate of acceleration, the duration of the acceleration, or the extent of any subsequent "decay."

We note that this interpretation of S4.3 and S5.2 is consistent with the purpose of those requirements, which is to ensure that retractors will lock in the event of severe vehicle deceleration, such as that which is experienced in a crash. In the event of an actual crash, it is unlikely that a retractor will be subjected to a constant rate of acceleration. It is also unlikely that the acceleration will occur within a narrow corridor for a specific duration. Moreover, the acceleration experienced by the retractor may decay during emergency events. Nonetheless, in all instances, the retractor must lock if the seat belt is to properly restrain an occupant.

With respect to your inquiry about tolerances, the TP provides that the retractor should be subjected to an acceleration of 0.72 g to ensure that, even if the test facility's instrumentation is slightly inaccurate, the retractor will be subjected to at least 0.7 g. This, in effect, provides a tolerance for the test facility. However, this does not create a tolerance for the manufacturer. As noted above, NHTSA often directs its test facilities to test in a less stringent manner than that set forth in a standard (in this case, at a slightly higher acceleration, which tends to facilitate retractor lock-up) to assure that a test will not have to be repeated in the event of a slight error. However, notwithstanding the TP, each manufacturer must assure that its retractors will lock when tested at the 0.7 g level provided in the standard; a retractor that did not lock until it experienced 0.72 g would be deemed noncompliant.

I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information on this subject.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:209
d.2/4/2000

ID: armor23160

Mr. Charlie Cao
Armor USA, Inc.
611 Forest Hill Drive
Coppell, TX 75019





Dear Mr. Cao:

This responds to your letter received on May 22, 2001 asking for information about the application of glazing marking requirements. More specifically, you ask whether it is optional or mandatory to have a DOT number for bullet-resistant glass to be used for the windshield of armored vehicles. As discussed below, a DOT number is required for the bullet-resistant glass to be used for the windshield of all vehicles, including armored vehicles.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the statutory authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or pass on the compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment outside the context of an actual enforcement proceeding. Instead, Federal law establishes a self-certification system under which motor vehicle and equipment manufacturers themselves certify that their products comply with all applicable standards.

FMVSS No. 205, Glazing materials (49 CFR 571.205), specifies requirements for glazing in each new motor vehicle. The standard permits bullet-resistant glazing to be used anywhere in a motor vehicle, provided such glazing meets specified performance, location, marking, and certification requirements. Therefore, the glazing to be used for the windshield of armored vehicles, whether bullet-resistant or not, must be marked in accordance with the marking requirements of FMVSS No. 205, as discussed below.

S6 of Standard No. 205 establishes marking and certification requirements for manufacturers and distributors of glazing materials. S6.1 requires every Aprime glazing material manufacturer@ (defined in S6.1 of Standard No. 205 as Aone who fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material@) to mark all glazing materials it manufactures in accordance with section 6 of American National Standard ASafety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways@ Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (AANS Z26"). S6.3 requires each prime glazing manufacturer to certify each piece of glazing designed to be cut into components for use in motor vehicles pursuant to the requirements of our statute at 49 U.S.C. ' 30115.

Each manufacturer or distributor who would not be considered a Aprime glazing material manufacturer,@ but who cuts a section of glazing material to which Standard No. 205 applies, must comply with the requirements set forth in S6.4 and S6.5 of Standard No. 205. For sections of glazing that are cut by the manufacturer or distributor, the manufacturer or distributor must mark it in accordance with section 6 of ANS Z26 (S6.4) and certify it in accordance with 49 U.S.C. ' 30115.

For your further information, I am enclosing a fact sheet we prepared entitled Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment, and Where to Obtain NHTSA=

s Safety Standards and Regulations.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Nancy Bell of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
Ref:205
d.8/1/01

ID: arschin

Arthur N. Arschin, Esq.
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2803
New York, NY 10123

Dear Mr. Arschin:

This responds to your letter to this agency asking whether the manufacturer identification numbers assigned to the Vee Rubber Company, Ltd. and the Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd. remain valid. The short answer is yes, if the plants remain in production.

49 CFR 574.5 requires each new or newly retreaded tire sold in the United States to have a tire identification number (TIN) labeled by the manufacturer on one sidewall of the tire. The TIN is intended to assist NHTSA to identify the production source of a tire in the event of a defect or noncompliance. The TIN must include a manufacturer identification mark (MIM) issued by NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR 574.6. NHTSA issues a separate MIM for each plant that currently produces or retreads tires, and a plant can only have one MIM.

Once NHTSA issues a MIM, the mark remains in effect as long as the plant to which it applies remains in production. In the event the plant ceases production, the mark assigned to that plant may not be further assigned or otherwise used by the manufacturer or anyone else. If the plant ceases production, NHTSA should be promptly notified so that the mark can be cancelled.

With regard to your client rubber companies, the MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber Company, Ltd., YRU for Plant No. 1 and YRV for Plant No. 2, remain in effect if those plants are still in production. The MIMs assigned to Vee Rubber International Company, Ltd., 4A for Plant No. 1 and 5A for Plant No. 2 remain in effect if those plants are still in production.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel ref:574 d:10/20/95

ID: avi.ztv

Mr. John M. Dowd
Mr. James C. Osborne, Jr.
Ms. Elizabeth C. Peterson
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036

Re: American Vehicle Importers, Inc.

Dear Messrs. Dowd and Osborne, and Ms. Peterson:

We are replying to your letter of December 23, 1999, addressed to myself, and to Messrs. Guerci, Vinson, and Entwistle of this agency submitting a proposal to resolve the matters discussed at your meeting with us on December 21. This meeting concerned the practices of your client, American Vehicle Importers, Inc. ("AVI") with respect to statutes and regulations enforced by the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance ("OVSC").

I will address the items in your letter in the order you have raised them. Your initial remark ascribes to us the acknowledgment that "the current regulations do not prohibit a Registered Importer ('RI') from moving an imported vehicle to an auction lot prior to receipt of a Bond Release for a vehicle." This is coupled with your realization that we may need to know the location of the vehicle during the period before the bond is released in order to be able to inspect it for conformance, and you state that AVI will inform OVSC of the location where the vehicles may be inspected. We agree that the current regulations do not specifically prohibit a RI from placing bonded vehicles on an auction lot, and that AVI's informing us of the location of bonded vehicles should facilitate our ability to inspect them. However, AVI must also ensure that we have unfettered access to these vehicles on an auction lot in the same manner as we would were they retained on AVI's property, at all times until receipt of the bond release. That is to say, we must be admitted to inspect bonded vehicles stored on an auction lot during all business hours. We will require the same information location from all RIs that do not store bonded vehicles on the lots identified in their registration application.

You contend "that the regulation, which prohibits an RI from licensing or registering the vehicle or 'releas[ing] custody of the vehicle to any person for license or registration for use on public streets . . .' prior to receipt of a Bond Release, do not preclude the vehicle's sale at a wholesale auction prior to receipt of the Bond Release." We disagree with you on this point. One of the conditions of the bond is that the vehicle it covers be exported or abandoned to the United States in the event that an insufficient showing of conformity is made and the bond and the vehicle are not released (49 U.S.C. 30141(d)(1) as implemented by 49 CFR 591.8(e) and Appendices A and B, and 49 CFR 592.6(a)). If a bonded vehicle has been sold at auction, wholesale or otherwise, before the bond has been released, we could not be certain that the RI could fulfill its duty to export or abandon the nonconforming vehicle because it would no longer own the vehicle. In that instance, NHTSA's sole remedy would be to foreclose on the bond. This is insufficient to fulfill the safety purpose of the statute and the bond, which is to ensure that imported noncomplying vehicles be brought into compliance before being licensed for use, and used, on the public roads. We note, however, your statement that "AVI will agree to await receipt of a Bond Release before selling its imported vehicles at a wholesale auction," and your opinion that all RI s should be preluded from selling their vehicles before receiving a bond release. To address your concern, we do intend to enforce the law equally, and we have informed RIs that they must not sell bonded vehicles while the bond is in effect, whether at auctions, to dealers, or to individuals.

Your final concern regards titling of bonded vehicles. You assert that we acknowledged that "the current regulations do not prohibit the titling of an imported vehicle prior to release of the bond on the vehicle." You refer to the letter of November 11, 1999, by Philip Trupiano, the president of Auto Enterprises, Inc. (and a principal of AVI), requesting an interpretation whether a RI may obtain a title for re-sale purposes before this agency has released the applicable performance bond. I enclose a copy of the Chief Counsel's recent response to Mr. Trupiano. As he advised Mr. Trupiano, we do not interpret 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1) as precluding a RI from obtaining a title to a bonded vehicle in its own name before the bond is released. However, for the reasons explained in that letter, we have concluded that a RI may not have a vehicle retitled to another entity pending bond release.

With respect to other issues, you ask that OVSC commit to release the bond on a vehicle no more than seven days after receipt of conformance certification. While OVSC will not make such a "commitment," which, in any event, would not be enforceable, our policy has been, and will be, to process conformance certification packages expeditiously and in the order in which they are received. During the past three months, the average period between receipt of a RI's conformance package and bond release has been reduced to five days.

You also ask that OVSC engage in further discussions regarding implementation of a software program presented to OVSC by AVI and Avalon Risk Management. OVSC is willing to consider any software program, provided that the developer of the program agrees to waive all proprietary rights if the program is implemented. With regard to AVI's proposal to work with OVSC "to develop a procedure by which Vehicle Identification Numbers are inspected and verified prior to entry into the U.S," we believe that the U.S. Customs Service would be a more appropriate Federal agency to work with, particularly regarding procedures intended to identify stolen vehicles before their entry into the U.S.

Finally, we agree with you that fundamental fairness requires us to interpret and enforce the law equally against all RIs. To assure that RIs understand their duties and responsibilities, we will discuss these matters in Newsletter No. 16, currently being prepared to be sent to the RI community.

Sincerely,
Kenneth N. Weinstein
Associate Administrator
for Safety Assurance
Enclosure
ref:592
d.4/19/2000

ID: nht72-5.23

DATE: 11/22/72

FROM: ELWOOD T. DRIVER FOR ROBERT L. CARTER -- NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 22, 1972, proposing that the "Certification" regulations (49 CFR Part 567) be amended to allow the use of "metal stamping or embossed letters" for information which must be inserted on certification labels.

We have treated your request as a petition for rulemaking persuant to 49 CFR Part 553, and have decided that it should be denied. The NHTSA is of the view that numbers and letters added in this way are frequently difficult to read. To allow their use as you have (Illegible Word) would be inconsistent with the purpose of the Certification regulations that the relevant information be provided to (Illegible Word) in as easily legible manner.

There is no prohibition, of course, of the use of stamped or embassed lettering on labels if steps are taken to make it contrast with its background.

ID: nht72-5.24

DATE: 06/12/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Francis Armstrong; NHTSA

TO: McLaughlin Equipment Company

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in further reply to your letters to the National Transportation Safety Board and the Secretary of Commerce that have been referred to this office.In your letter to the National Transportation Safety Board you discuss the remounting of old school bus bodies on new truck chassis and ask, what are the implications of a body shop taking the responsibility of modifying the vehicle?" It is assumed that when you refer to modifying you mean remounting a used school bus body on a new chassis.

Persons (Illegible Words) new chassis are considered to be manufacturers within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and specifically a final stage manufacturer as defined in Part 565 of Title as of the Code of Federal Regulations.

We appreciate your bringing this situation to our attention and presently have the matter under investigation.

If you are aware of any one currently involved in this type of business (Illegible Word) might not be aware of their responsibilities, please furnish specific details.

I am enclosing the following pertinent publications:

1. National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

2. Notice of Publications Change.

3. Part 356 of Title 69 of the Code of Federal Regulations - Manufacturer Identification.

4. Part 567 - Certification.

5. Part 565 - Vehicles Manufactured in Two or More Stages.

6. Part 573 - Defect Reports.

7. Part 574 - Tire Identification.

If you have further questions, I will be pleased to answer them.

ID: nht72-5.25

DATE: 12/01/72 EST.

FROM: Robert L. Carter; signature by Elwood T. Driver

TO: Hatch Imports Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of December 5, 1972, concerning approvals required by the Federal Government regarding the sale of safety glazing materials.

No approval by the Federal Government is required. Certification of conformance to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 is self-certification. I am enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205 and Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966.

If you are not aware of State approvals, you may want to contact Mr. Armand Cardarelli, of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Suite 500, 1828 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036.

If we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to ask.

ID: nht72-5.26

DATE: 08/31/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of August 18, 1972, enclosing threesample Certification labels. Each of the three labels contains a line for inserting the gross axle weight rating for four axles. You ask whether the lines representing intermediate axles may be deleted through the use of X's for vehicles that do not have such axles.

The use of X's or similar markings to delete superfluous times is Certification labels of the type you enclose, is not prohibited by the Certification regulations. Consequently they may be used for vehicles having up to four axles.

ID: nht72-5.27

DATE: 09/18/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Truck Equipment & Body Distributors Assoc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: With reference to your phone conversation with Mike Peskoe on September 8, I have enclosed a copy of an NHTSA opinion which concludes that a person adding a snow plow to a completed vehicle is not required to certify the vehicle. In such a case, the existing certification label should be left in place. You should note that the opinion also states that if the mounting of the snow plow causes the vehicle not to conform to any applicable motor vehicle safety standard, and the vehicle is not brought back into conformity before sale, the person mounting the plow will be violating section 105(a)(1) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, and will be subject to civil penalties and other sanctions as prescribed in sections 109 and 110 of the Act.

ID: nht72-5.28

DATE: 02/08/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Oshkosh Truck Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

TEXT UNAVAILABLE