Interpretation ID: 77-3.10
TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA
DATE: 06/27/77
FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA
TO: Britax (Wingard) Limited
TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION
TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 5, 1977, requesting clarification of the relationship between paragraph S5.3 of Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and Safety Standard No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance. It is your understanding that Standard No. 216 becomes "obsolete and ineffective" after August 15, 1977.
Your interpretation is incorrect. Standard No. 216 is a separate, independent standard from Standard No. 208 and remains effective in its present form regardless of the amendment of Standard No. 208 according to any of the three alternative proposals issued by Secretary Adams (42 FR 15935, March 24, 1977). Standard No. 216 is applicable to all passenger cars except those that conform to the rollover test requirements of paragraph S5.3 of Standard No. 208 by totally passive means.
Under existing Standard No. 208, a manufacturer must meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3 only if he chooses to use option S4.1.2.1 (total passive protection). If the manufacturer chooses this option he can meet the requirements of Standard No. 216 instead of the rollover requirements of S5.3 until August 15, 1977, but not after that date since the alternative then expires. A manufacturer choosing to use either option S4.1.2.2 or option S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208 does not have to meet the rollover requirements of paragraph S5.3, at all. As a manufacturer of seat belts, you are undoubtedly aware that a majority of vehicle manufacturers choose to comply with Standard No. 208 by means of option S4.1.2.3.
If Secretary Adams' Alternative proposal I or Alternative proposal III becomes a final rule, Standard No. 208 will remain in the form just described above. The Secretary's Alternative II (mandatory passive restraints) proposes to make the lateral (S5.2) and rollover (S5.3) requirements of Standard No. 208 optional. A manufacturer would be permitted to use a totally passive system (meeting S5.1, S5.2 and S5.3) or to install lap belts and only meet the requirements of S5.1. If Alternative II were made final, most vehicle manufacturers would probably choose to install lap belts rather than to provide passive protection that would satisfy S5.3. As you noted, Alternative II also proposes to extend the option in paragraph S5.3 (complying with Standard No. 216 instead) from August 15, 1977, to August 31, 1980.
You are correct in your statement that the Secretary does not expect to reach a final decision on his alternative proposals until July.
SINCERELY,
MAY 5, 1977
Our ref: TVB/MPJ
Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 571. Docket No. 74 14; Notice 08. March 24th 1977.
I would appreciate any clarification which you can give on the present status of FMVSS 216 and 208 in relation to the document reference on the heading.
On page 15937 of Notice 08 there are proposed three approaches to the amendment of Standard No. 208. Approach I and Approach III do not give us any problems in understanding, but there are certain parts of Approach II where we would be glad of clarification. In Section 2 of Approach II the date of August 15th 1977 would be changed to read August 31st 1980.
We are concerned particularly where this appears in S5.3. As we understand S5.3 in Federal Standard 208, as referenced, the rollover test is not compulsory if testing and conformity to FMVSS 216 has been carried out. Our understanding of S5.3 is that vehicles manufactured on or after August 15th 1977 would have to meet the requirements of S5.3 without the option of alternative certification under Standard No. 216. In other words that Standard 216 would at that date become obsolete and ineffective. Can you please confirm, or otherwise, the following statement:
1. As the Regulations stand at present vehicles manufactured on or after August 14th 1977 would be required to meet S5.3 of Standard 208.
2. As of August 15th 1977 the testing of vehicles to Standard No. 216 becomes irrelevant in all respects.
3. That this situation would stand if either Approach I or Approach III were taken as the amendement to Standard No. 208.
4. That no official decision on the amendement of 208 by means of any of the three approaches will be available before July 1st 1977.
We are not only interested in the applicability of Standard 208 with regard to occupant protection but also from the viewpoint of the use of either Standard 208 or Standard No. 216 in relation to body strength and in particular roof crush, if there is manufacturer or replacement equipment fitment of an opening roof unit.
It appears to us, as mentioned above, that testing for conformity to Standard No. 216 is likely to be irrelevant for any purpose after August 15th this year.
Any clarification you can give would be greatly appreciated.
T.V. Barlow Safety Engineer -- BRITAX (WINGARD) LTD.