ID: nht81-3.41

DATE: 11/18/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Mazda (North America), Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation regarding Safety Standard No. 207 as it would apply to a new seat design your company is considering. This design includes additional seat track forward of the seat track positions that are included as normal riding positions. Since there are no locking positions on this additional seat track, the vehicle seat cannot comply with the loading requirements of Standard No. 207 when in this position. Those requirements must be satisfied in any position to which a seat can be adjusted. You ask whether the extended track would be considered part of the seat track for purposes of Standard No. 207 and for purposes of the adjustment requirements in testing under Safety Standard No. 208.

The answer to your question is yes unless some mechanism is included which will automatically return the seat to a locked position on the track when the seat back is in its upright position and no force is being applied. Most motor vehicle seats will travel some short distance forward of the forward-most adjustment locking position. However, they are designed to return to the nearest locked adjustment position when the adjusting force is removed from the seat, i.e., when the occupant releases the adjustment lever and stops pushing the seat forward. Many seat designs accomplish this result by spring-loading the seat. Therefore, the seat track portion labeled "A-B" in your diagram would not be considered part of the seat track for purposes of Safety Standard No. 207 and Standard No. 208 if the seat is designed to return automatically to position "B" and lock when the seat back is in its upright riding position.

None of the other alternative solutions you mentioned would be sufficient. All of the alternatives fail to prevent the seat with its seat back in the upright position from being adjusted to a position on the "A-B" portion of the track, all of which are unlocked positions. With one limited exception, none of the alternatives would aid the seat in meeting the forward and rearward loading requirements when the seat is adjusted somewhere on the "A-B" portion of the track. The exception concerns the alternative of strengthening the stopper at the "A" position. This alternative might enable the seat to meet the forward loading requirements of Standard No. 207, but only when the seat was adjusted to the "A" position on the "A-B" portion of the track. The seat would not be able to meet the aft loading requirements at the "A" position, however.

I would like to point out that the agency does not provide advance approval of any device or element of design in a motor vehicle. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicles Safety Act makes the vehicle manufacturer responsible for determining whether its vehicles are in compliance with all applicable safety standards and for certifying that compliance. This letter only represents the agency's informal opinion based on its understanding of the information supplied in your letter.

Also, if you desire to have the information concerning this seat design treated as confidential business information by the agency, you will have to submit sufficient information to justify such treatment. I am enclosing proposed guidelines for seeking confidential treatment. If you do not choose to follow this procedure, we will have to place this interpretation in our public redbook file for the benefit of all interested persons.

ENC.

ID: nht81-3.42

DATE: 11/20/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fruehauf Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff concerning the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120 (49 CFR @ 571.120). Specifically, you asked if retreaded tires could be mounted on new trucks and trailers, and what requirements those tires would have to meet.

Retreaded tires can be mounted on new trucks and trailers without violating Standard 120. For your information, I have enclosed a copy of a 1978 interpretation concerning Standard 120 which explains that retreaded tires can be mounted on new trucks and trailers in compliance with the standard. The only requirements those tires would have to meet is that the sum of the maximum load ratings for the tires would have to be at least equal to the gross axle weight rating of the axle to which they were fitted, as specified in section @ 5.1.2 of the Standard 120. As explained in the attached letter, there is no requirement that the retread meet the requirements of Standard 119 because those requirements are inapplicable to retreads. Further, there is no requirement that the retreads have the DOT symbol.

If you have any further questions, please contact Mr. Kratzke at (202) 426-2992.

ID: nht81-3.43

DATE: 11/24/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Dart Transit Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent telephone conversations with Roger Fairchild of this office, in which you requested our approval for Freuhauf to change the vehicle identification numbers (VIN's) on certain of its trailers which your company purchased. As we understand your situation, your company intended to purchase and Freuhauf intended to provide you 1980 model year trailers. The trailers you actually received had Freuhauf's statements of origin indicating they are 1980 model year trailers. However, the first character of the third section of the trailers' VIN's is apparently a "B," thus indicating that the model year is 1981. Freuhauf reportedly wishes to correct the VIN's and use an "A" instead of a "B," thus indicating the 1980 model year. We understand too that these vehicles were not manufactured in serial sequence, but are scattered randomly through the manufacturer's production run.

Based on our understanding of the facts you have provided us, this agency does not have any objection to this change being made by Freuhauf. The requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115 provide the manufacturers with substantial latitude regarding model year designation. S4.5.3.1 of the Standard requires that the first character of the third section of the VIN indicate the model year. S3 of the Standard defines "model year" as "the year used to designate a discrete vehicle model irrespective of the calendar year in which the vehicle was actually produced, so long as the actual period is less than 2 years." In issuing the standard, the agency anticipated that once the manufacturer of a discrete vehicle model switched from designating those vehicles with a given model year (e.g., 1983) to the next model year (i.e., 1984), the manufacturer would uniformly designate all vehicles with that new model year until it switched to designating all vehicles uniformly as being produced in the following model year (i.e., 1985). More than any other user of the VIN, the manufacturer itself would benefit from this practice since it promotes the orderliness of records. However, Standard No. 115 does not actually require that this practice be followed. Further, the departure from the practice in a limited circumstance should not pose any significant practical problem for the users of the VIN's of trailers in question.

ID: nht81-3.44

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: K. G. Moyer

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ATTACHMT: 4/1/88 (EST) LETTER FROM MICHAEL FINKELSTEIN TO CARL KAPLAN (STD. 108); 3/7/88 MEMO FROM ERIKA JONES; 5/2/84 LETTER FROM FRANK BERNDT TO LAWRENCE F. HENNEBERGER

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of September 22, 1981, about your "alert device which automatically turns on the stop lamps of the vehicle when the accelerator is released." You wish our permission to install the device for experimentation and testing on other vehicles, as well as an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 whether your device is allowable.

As you know, the agency has devoted considerable effort to improve rear braking signals, culminating in its proposal that passenger cars be equipped with a single high-mounted stop lamp on the centerline of the vehicle. The concept of a pre-brake application signal is a familiar one to us, but the agency has conducted no formal research with respect to it, and in view of its stop-lamp proposal, is unlikely to do so. The technical issues that we consider relevant to your concept are (1) whether most rear-end accidents are preceded by a "panic" stop by the struck vehicle, (2) whether panic stops involve unique driver behavior that can be reliably discriminated from non-panic stop behaviour and used to trigger a pre-braking signal, and (3) whether the resulting signal will automatically result in a decrease in the reaction time of following drivers that is equal to the early warning time it provides. We know of no scientifically acceptable data that support these critical assumptions. We are especially concerned that a high rate of "false alarms" may lead to a decrease in the overall warning value of the stop lamp signal itself, i.e., the "cry wolf" phenomenon. This could lead to a significant reduction in the effectiveness of any proposed system.

Paragraph 2.1 of SAE Standard J586d, Stop Lamps, September 1977, incorporated by reference in Standard No. 108, defines a stop lamp as one whose operation indicates "the intention of the operator of a vehicle to stop or diminish speed by braking."

Your device would activate the stop lamp under a condition indicating an intent other than the above, which could impair the effectiveness of the stop lamps. We view any use of required lighting equipment for a purpose other than as defined, as an "impairment" within the prohibition of paragraph S4.1.3 of Standard No. 108 if the device is installed as original equipment. If the device is sold in the after-market, our laws preclude modifications that "render ineffective in whole or in part" required lighting equipment, if the modifications are performed by a person other than the vehicle owner. We would consider your system prohibited by this provision as well.

Noting your comment that the device may be used for testing on school buses, this means that there is no prohibition under the laws that we administer which would forbid a school district from installing your device on its fleet. Such a modification would be subject to laws of the jurisdiction in which the school bus is registered and operates.

SINCERELY,

September 22, 1981

To: Frank Berndt Chief Counsel NHTS Administrator

Subject: Installation of Automatic Safety Alert Device on Motor Vehicles

I currently have an alert device which automatically turns on the stop lights of the vehicle when the accelerator is released. This installation is simple, inexpensive and easy to install. I am requesting your consideration and permission for installing this device for experimentation and testing on school busses and other motor vehicles.

I am also requesting interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 to determine if this device meets the requirements for installation on motor vehicles under this provision.

On September 15, 1981, a vehicle (1981 Citation), with this alert device installed, was inspected by Dr. Carl Clark and his associates and all pertinent data is on file in his office.

If further testing or inspection of this car is required, I would return to Washington at any time. I would also consider allowing the use of this car for a period of testing by your office or will furnish any additional information required.

If interpretation of 49 CFR 571, S108 is not favorable, or if this alert device is not considered under this provision, I will petition for modification of the rules to allow use of this device on motor vehicles on an individual basis, in accordance with Part 552.

Your early consideration of this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Kenneth G. Moyer

PETITION

To: Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 SEVENTH STREET WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590

I, Kenneth G. Moyer, of 6400 Goldbranch Road, Columbia, S. C. 29206, petition for a change in rulemaking standards to allow this Automatic Safety Alert Device to be installed on motor vehicles, on an individual basis, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

Claim: An early-warning electrical system for vehicles of the type characterized by a normally open warning switch, mechanically co-operating with the accelerator pedal and throttle linkage and electrically connected to the vehicle rear light circuit to automatically light the brake lights when the pressure on the accelerator pedal is removed. The brake lights which are lit by applying pressure to the brake pedl are red in color and are universally recognized as indication that the vehicle is about to slow or stop. This alert device allows the brake light system to be activated when there is no pressure on the accelerator pedal.

The primary object of this device is to provide a simple and inexpensive warning system to be installed on vehicles without making changes to the linkage system and is designed to operate separately of the brake pedal switch.

This warning system alerts following drivers that the vehicles speed is decreasing and, therefore, provides time for the following driver to avoid a dangerous condition.

This alert device has been approved for use in the state of South Carolina. My contact is Maj. Lanier, phone-803-758-3315, of the South Carolina Highway Department.

I am to meet with the Highway Transportation Department in ten days to discuss installing this device on South Carolina school busses. My contact is Ralph Hendricks, phone-803-758-2762.

One U. S. car manufacturer and one foreign firm have requested information on this alert device for possible installation on new cars.

In view of the enclosed information, I request this petition be considered for a change in rulemaking standards, in accordance with 49 CFR 571,S108.

With this alert device installed on motor vehicles, it could possibly decrease the excessively high rate of rear-end collisions.

No alert devices are installed on any vehicles except those I personally own.

This alert device does not affect the normal operation of the brake pedal to operate the stop lights when the brake pedal is applied.

I am awaiting the results of consideration by the National Highway Safety Administration.

ID: nht81-3.45

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: United States Testing Company Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your July 24, 1981, letter directed to our Office of Enforcement in which you ask whether it would be permissible to test for compliance with Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials, in a manner different than that prescribed in the standard. The standard states that a 14-inch long section of material shall be burned in a test oven until the flame reaches within 1 1/2 inches from the end of the material. You state that for some fabrics this requires a test that can extend to 10 minutes. In a test of this length, the heat buildup in the test oven can cause the glass front of the oven to break. You suggest that the test be discontinued after five minutes, and the burn rate calculated.

The test requirements of the standard are provided to show how the agency will test for compliance. However, it is not compulsory that a manufacturer adhere to every facet of the test procedures if it can satisfy itself that its product will comply with the standard by testing in another manner.

As you know, the standard requires only that the burn rate of a material not exceed four inches per minute. A 14-inch long section of material that has not burned completely to its end in five minutes obviously would not exceed the 4-inch per minute burn rate. Accordingly, we do not see any reason that you could not terminate the test five minutes after the starting point specified in paragraph S5.3(e) of the standard.

SINCERELY,

United States Testing Company, Inc.

July 24, 1981

Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Standards Enforcement

Enforcement Director:

Our laboratory has been conducting tests for conformance to FMVSS 302 for many years. In the last couple of years we have noticed that certain materials although very slow burning create so much heat within the chamber that the heat resistant glass on the front of the cabinet shattered.

If one stays in strict compliance with the test procedure, the material being tested must be allowed to burn for a distance of 10 inches in the timing zone. In order to prevent excessive heat build up with possible harmful side effects, it might be suggested to abort the testing after 5 minutes of timing and calculate the burn rate on the length burned in 5 minutes.

Since this is not incorporated in any part of the test procedure, may we ask for your opinion in this regard.

Although we are highly concerned for the safety of our technical help and take all necessary precautions, we feel that the suggested approach should be either spelled out in future revisions or that a statement be issued by the Department of Transportation with regard to this problem.

G. R. Dufresne Assistant Vice President

ID: nht81-3.46

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Newbuilt Enterprises

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of May 26, 1981, regarding Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of our response. You request permission to install a "Ballistic Cube 2000" in 500 motor vehicles over a two-year period for experimental purposes. The "Ballistic Cube 2000" is a protective cubicle made of Lexgard that is installed inside a vehicle. Lexgard, a bullet-resistant material, does not comply with all the requirements of Standard No. 205. You urge us to grant your request on the basis that the data generated from such an experiment would be relevant to a rulemaking proceeding initiated by General Electric. (General Electric has petitioned NHTSA to amend Standard No. 205 to permit the use of protective bullet-resistant shields in vehicles. The agency granted this petition on November 28, 1980.)

Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard which applies to all glazing materials used in passenger cars, buses, trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. All automotive glazing materials, including those used in the Ballistic Cube 2000, must conform to the standard's requirements. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act) provides in part that no person shall sell or manufacture for sale any item of motor vehicle equipment that does not comply with any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard in effect on the date of the item's manufacture. Thus, if you were to manufacture for sale or sell a Ballistic Cube 2000 made of Lexgard or any other glazing material that does not comply with Standard No. 205, you would be in violation of section 108(a)(1)(A). (Section 108(b)(5) establishes that section 108(a)(1)(A) does not apply when the motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment is intended solely for export and is so labeled.) Section 109 imposes a civil penalty up to $ 1,000 for each violation of Section 108.

We believe that installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles could possibly generate test data that could be valuable to the agency in the previously mentioned rulemaking proceeding. Unfortunately, however, NHTSA does not have the legal authority to grant you permission to make such an installation. NHTSA does not have statutory authority to exempt an equipment manufacturer from the requirements of Section 108(a)(1)(A) as it relates to motor vehicle equipment.

Section 123 of the Act authorizes the exemption of motor vehicles from the safety standards. However, it does not authorize the exemption of motor vehicle equipment from equipment standards. As noted above, Standard No. 205 is an equipment standard applicable to glazing. Consequently, no exemption can be granted under section 123 that would excuse manufacturing, offering for sale or selling noncomplying glazing as part of the vehicles you wish to modify and sell, since you would also be considered an equipment manufacturer.

While the agency cannot grant you an exemption, it is pursuing the request made by G.E. regarding Lexgard. The agency anticipates issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking before the end of this year. If a final rule permitting the use of Lexgard were issued, you could commence manufacturing and installation of the Ballistic Cubes upon the effective date of that rule.

Even if that rule is issued, there may be other standards which must be considered. As we understand your materials, the installation of the Ballistic Cube 2000 in motor vehicles may affect the compliance of those vehicles with FMVSS No. 103, Windshield Defrosting and Defogging Systems, and FMVSS No. 201, Occupant Protection in Interior Impact. If you were to install a Ballistic Cube in a new vehicle, i.e., one that had not yet been purchased for purposes other than resale, you would violate section 108(a)(1)(A) if the vehicle no longer complied with one of those standards. Of course, since Standard Nos. 103 and 201 are vehicle standards, you could apply for an exemption from those standards. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act would prohibit you from installing the Ballistic Cube in a used vehicle if such installation would destroy the vehicle's compliance with Standards 103 and 201.

The agency cannot definitively state whether installation of your cube in a motor vehicle would affect the compliance of the vehicle with Standards Nos. 201 or 103. NHTSA does not offer prior approval of compliance of any vehicle or equipment design with any safety standard before the manufacturer's certification of its product. It is the manufacturer's responsibility under the Act to determine whether its vehicle or equipment complies with all applicable safety standards and regulations and to certify its vehicle or equipment in accordance with that determination. The agency is willing to offer an opinion on whether a vehicle or motor vehicle equipment complies with a particular rule. Such an opinion is not binding on the agency or on the manufacturer. However, the information you have provided in your letter does not give us a sufficient basis on which to form an opinion. It would probably be difficult for the agency to offer an opinion concerning your compliance with Standard 203 regardless of the information you supplied, since that standard involves a dynamic performance test.

Apart from the requirements imposed by section 108(a)(1)(A) regarding compliance with safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have general responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under sections 151 et seq., such manufacturers must notify purchases about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Section 109 imposes a civil penalty of up to $ 1,000 upon any person who fails to provide notification of or remedy for a defect in motor vehicle equipment.

I am sorry we are unable to accommodate you in this matter. However, since it is beyond our legal authority to do so, we have no choice but to make the decision set forth in this letter. Please contact this office if you have any questions.

SINCERELY,

NEWBUILT ENTERPRISES

May 26, 1981

Office of the Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Attention: Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel Gentlemen:

Our firm has developed a new concept in the manufacture of bullet-resistant vehicles. This concept is known as the Ballistic Cube 2000 with U. S. Patent Pending, Serial No. 253,108.

Our "cube" concept utilizes a highly bullet-resistant material manufactured by General Electric Company, called Lexgard.

We are enclosing some literature which more fully explains our application of this Lexgard material and our Ballistic Cube 2000 concept. We also have met with Carl C. Clark, PhD, Office of Vehicle Structures Research, and his committee regarding our new concept.

We presented a video film and demonstration to the committee on May 21, 1981. If you have any questions regarding the technical nature of our application, we are quite sure Dr. Clark would be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

We hereby request your permission and an assurance of non-prosecution for any violation of the Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, for an experimental period of two years. We desire to fabricate and install our units for on-highway use to develop facts and test data to substantiate the advantages of our application.

As you are probably aware, General Electric Company has petitioned the Department for amendments in the current standards. This petition has been granted and is currently being reviewed. They have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration amend MVSS No. 205 by adapting the following new glazing category:

"Item IIX: Materials conforming to the requirements of Test Numbers 2, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29, and 32 of ANSZ26.1 may be used as a bullet-resisting shield at levels requisite for driver visibility. The phrase "bullet-resisting shield" for the purposes of this standard means a transparent barrier mounted completely inside the vehicle, behind and separated from glazing materials that independently comply with the requirements of FMVSS No. 205. The bullet-resisting shield shall be conveniently removable for cleaning and replacement without disturbing the (exterior-glass) glazing material."

Our vehicle production during this two year experimental period is estimated as follows: Number of Units Description 100 Armored Transport Vehicles (Money Carriers) 50 Law Enforcement Transports (Buses, Vans) 150 Private Automobiles 150 Motor Coaches - Public Transportation 50 Rescue Units - Law Enforcement

The only area in which our concept does not comply with the current Standard No. 205 is that ANS Z26 does not permit the use of Lexgard BR in the windshield area. It does permit the use of bullet-resistant glass. Lexgard provides far better protection than BR glass. The windshield can also be removed quickly in case of an emergency.

Some of the advantages of our concept are as follows:

- Vehicle fuel economy is considerably improved by weight reductions in the glazing materials and in the required support and framing members. Lexgard is one-third the weight of BR glass.

- Lexgard BR qualifies as both an AS-10 and AS-11 glazing material under the requirements defined in the current standard, ANS Z26.1-1966.

- Unlike other bullet-resisting materials, Lexgard BR does not spall under impact.

- Lexgard BR provides a greater level of overall protection from ballistic impacts than other equivalently rated bullet-resisting products.

- The vehicles we are proposing to use are primarily operated by trained, skilled, professional drivers.

After reviewing the information, we respectfully request your favorable response to our request.

Should you have any further questions or require additional information, please contact us.

Rickey L. Newmayer President

Jerry A. Corbett Vice-President

Literature Omitted

ID: nht81-3.47

DATE: 11/30/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: G & C Mills Plastics, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: It has come to our attention that you are distributing auxiliary wind deflectors for use on motor vehicles which may not be in compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials. You received a letter from this agency dated July 13, 1979, and a later letter from the Department of Commerce which may have misled you concerning your responsibilities for complying with Standard No. 205.

This matter was brought to our attention by Mr. Paul Hingtgen who told the agency you had shown him the correspondence referred to above. I am enclosing copies of two letters we sent to Mr. Hingtgen which explain why and how the previous letter to you from this agency was misleading. From those letters, you will see that auxiliary wind deflectors are considered to be pieces of "motor vehicle equipment" and, as such, they must be made from glazing materials that are in compliance with Standard No. 205. We hope you will ensure that any wind deflectors you sell or distribute are in compliance with the standard, since you could be subject to substantial civil penalties if you fail to do so. I am also enclosing a copy of Standard No. 205.

If after reviewing the enclosed letters you have any questions, please contact Mr. Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

ENCLS.

ID: nht81-3.48

DATE: 12/08/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Automotive Research and Certification Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of October 19, 1981, requesting permission to import five different German specification 1982 BMW automobiles under the provisions of 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(vii).

You wish to import the cars to develop an emission control system which can be added to non-certified imported automobiles to enable them to pass Federal emission tests. The system will be "quite similar" to the system presently used on two U.S. certified BMW models. A secondary purpose is to develop bumper modifications meeting U.S. requirements. At the completion of the one-year test program you intend to bring the vehicles into conformity with the U.S. requirements.

In effect, the purpose of your testing is to encourage the eventual importation of motor vehicles that were not originally manufactured to meet Federal safety, bumper, and emission requirements. As this purpose is inconsistent with the emission of this agency, your request is denied. Given your intent to conform the vehicles in a year's time, we suggest that you import them under bond pursuant to 19 CFR 12.80(b)(1)(iii) and complete the necessary safety modifications before conducting your test program.

SINCERELY,

AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH AND CERTIFICATION, INC.

October 19, 1981

Frank Berndt Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Berndt:

It is hereby requested that permission be granted for the importation of five motor vehicles, as provided for by 19 CFR Part 12.80 (b)(1)(vii). These five vehicles will be used solely for the purpose of research, development, and testing. The five motor vehicles for which permission is requested are listed below:

1. BMW 323i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

2. BMW 528i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

3. BMW 635i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

4. BMW 745i (1982), Bayerische Motoren Werke, AG, Munich, West Germany.

5. BMW M1 (1982), BMW Motorsport, GmbH, Munich, West Germany.

The information required by 19 CFR Part 12.80 (c)(3) is enclosed. If any additional information is required, please contact me.

Robert P. McEvoy President

ENC.

REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO IMPORT NON-CERTIFIED MOTOR VEHICLES

There are, at present, several companies located throughout the United States engaged in the business of modifying non-certified imported automobiles to comply with EPA and NHTSA regulations. These companies do an acceptable job in that they enable the vehicles to pass the Federal emissions test and to conform to all applicable safety standards. However, the emissions related modifications generally decrease the vehicle's performance as well as decreasing the fuel economy. In addition, little consideration is given to the durability of the added emissions control systems.

The primary purpose of this research and development program is to develop an emissions control system, based on the Bosch Lambda closed-loop control system, which can be added to non-certified imported automobiles to enable them to pass the Federal Certification Test (40 CFR part 86). This system, when added to the vehicle, should result in little or no decrease in the vehicle's performance or fuel economy. Since there are no ill effects, there is no reason for the vehicle owner to tamper with the system or render it inoperative, as often happens with systems based on air injection or exhaust gas recirculation. It is felt that this system will be far superior to those currently being added to non-certified automobiles and will better meet the objectives of the Clean Air Act.

The proposed emission control system will be quite similar to the Bosch Lambda closed-loop control system presently being used on the U.S. certified BWM 320i and 528i models. It consists of the following major components.

1. An exhaust gas oxygen sensor to sense changes in the engine air-fuel ratio.

2. A valve to control the pressure (and therefore the volume) of the fuel injected.

3. An electronic control unit to operate the fuel valve based on input from the oxygen sensor.

4. A three-way catalytic converter.

5. An evaporative emission control system.

The research and development program will consist of the following steps:

1. Initial road and laboratory testing of the vehicles, as received, to obtain baseline measurements of emissions, fuel economy, and driveability.

2. Modification of vehicles to use unleaded fuel only.

3. Installation of evaporative emission control systems.

4. Modification of engine components as necessary to accept Bosch Lambda system components.

5. Modification and recalibration of Bosch Lambda and fuel injection components to deliver the desired fuel flow.

6. Selection and installation of three-way catalytic converters.

7. Road and laboratory testing of the vehicles to measure emissions, fuel economy, and driveability.

8. Additional road and laboratory testing to determine system durability.

It is estimated that this research and development program will have a duration of approximately one year.

It is necessary to import and test the five different vehicles previously listed due to the number of different engines available. All of the engines are in-line six cylinder designs, but they have widely differing displacements and power outputs. There are three different fuel injection systems (Bosch K-Jetronic, Bosch L-Jetronic, and Kugelfischer-Bosch mechanical), significantly different cylinder head and combustion chamber designs, and one model (the 745i) is turbocharged and available only with an automatic transmission. All of these factors have a significant effect on emission levels, and an emission control system developed for one model will not necessarily be optimum for another. Therefore, it is felt that all five of these models must be tested individually.

A secondary purpose of the research and development program is to develop a modification to the European style bumpers of the previously listed vehicles to enable them to conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581. Firms engaged in the business of modifying imported vehicles to conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581 generally exchange the European style bumper for U.S. style bumpers with the appropriate shock absorbing units. The disadvantages of this exchange are that a substantial amount of weight is added to the vehicle (thereby decreasing fuel economy) and the esthetic appearance of the vehicle is diminished.

It is felt that the European style bumpers can be modified to conform to the requirements of 49 CFR Part 581 by the addition of a support structure behind the bumper to give it added stiffness and by the addition of shock absorbing units. Although this would add some weight, it would not be nearly as much as that due to the U.S. style bumpers. In addition, the esthetic appearance of the vehicle would remain unchanged.

This bumper development program is particularly important in view of the possibility of a relaxation of the Bumper Standard (46 FR 34100, June 30, 1981). Any relaxation would make the use and modification of the European style bumpers even more feasible.

It is estimated that this research and development program will have a duration of approximately one year.

All five of the test vehicles will be owned by Automotive Research and Certification, Inc., and will be under the direct control of the Corporation. The test vehicles will be kept at, and development work carried out at facilities owned or leased by Automotive Research and Certification, Inc. The EPA and the NHTSA will be advised of the location of these facilities. Laboratory emissions testing will be carried out in an EPA approved testing laboratory. All test results will be recorded in keeping with proper engineering practice, and will be made available to the EPA and the NHTSA at any time and with any frequency desired by the EPA and the NHTSA. The vehicle identification numbers will be recorded and will be submitted to the EPA and the NHTSA upon receipt of the test vehicles.

It is intended that upon completion of the testing program, the test vehicles will be used to obtain Federal certification for the five models in accordance with 40 CFR Part 86. In addition, the test vehicles will be brought into conformity with all applicable safety standards (49 CFR Parts 571, 580, and 581). When all Federal requirements have been met, and approval has been given by the EPA and the NHTSA, the vehicles will be sold.

ID: nht81-3.49

DATE: 12/23/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: M. Lowenstein Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your November 25, 1981, letter asking whether children's car seats must comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302, Flammability of Interior Materials. The answer to your question is yes. Section S5.7 of Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, specifically states that each material used in a child restraint system shall comply with the flammability requirements of Standard No. 302.

SINCERELY,

M. LOWENSTEIN CORPORATION

November 25, 1981

Steve Oesch Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

One of the divisions within the M. Lowenstein Corporation is considering selling fabric to a manufacturer of infants' or children's car seats for use in upholstering these seats. We would appreciate your advisory opinion as to whether or not fabrics intended or promoted for this end use must comply with the DOTMVS 302 Fabric Flammability Standard.

Dr. John R. Holsten Director Of Regulatory Affairs

ID: nht81-3.5

DATE: 08/06/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Saunders Leasing System, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent request for an interpretation of our requirements concerning the presence of a "DOT" symbol on retreaded truck tires. Specifically, you asked whether a retreader would be in violation of any regulations if the retreader purchases casings (used tires to be retreaded) from which the "DOT" symbol has already been removed, and whether the retreader itself has a duty to remove the "DOT" symbol.

The retreader is not liable for using casings from which the "DOT" symbol has been removed, although any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business other than a retreader which removes that symbol from the casings is violating Federal regulations. The retreader does have an affirmative duty to remove the "DOT" symbol from the sidewall of retreaded truck tires.

The "DOT" symbol is required to appear on new truck tires as a certification that those tires fully comply with all the requirements of Safety Standard No. 119 (49 CFR @ 571.119), pursuant to the requirement of section S6.5(a) of that standard. Any manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business who removes this symbol would be removing an element of design installed on the tire in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard. Such removal is expressly prohibited by section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). However, there is no prohibition against subsequent use of these tires for further manufacturing operations, such as retreading. Hence, a retreader using these casings would not subject itself to any liability for violating section 108(a)(2)(A) or any other regulation.

The retreader has an affirmative duty to remove the DOT symbol from the tire during the course of the retreading operation. Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed) sets forth the basic tire making requirements for retreaders of truck tires. Section 574.5 imposes two basic duties on truck tire retreaders - (1) the retreader is required to mold or brand a tire identification number into the sidewall of each tire it retreads, except those retreaded solely for the retreader's own use, and (2) the "DOT" symbol shall not appear on tires to which no Federal motor vehicle safety standard is applicable. Since there is no safety standard applicable to retreaded truck tires, it follows that no "DOT" symbol may appear on the sidewall of those tires.

Should you have any further questions or need further information on this matter, feel free to contact me again.

ENC.

SAUNDERS LEASING SYSTEM INC.

June 10, 1981

Office of Chief Counsel NHTSA

Dear Sir:

Please advise us concerning the potential violations of your regulations for which a retreader of truck tires would be held responsible if a said retreader purchased tire casings on which the D.O.T. identification markings had been buffed off. Also, please advise as to a retreader's duty to remove said D.O.T. identification markings in conjunction with his retreading process.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the undersigned.

Brian T. Williams Assistant Counsel

CC: BILL JENKINS TRUCK CENTRAL/DIST. CENTER