ID: 86-2.16

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carl R. Walker

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Carl R. Walker Manager, Technical Sales and Service P.T. Brake Lining Company, Inc. P.O. Box 329 Lawrence, Ma 01842

Dear Mr. Walker:

This responds to your letter addressed to Mr. Richard Radlinski, concerning a statement by International Transquip alleging that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) "agree" that the Mini-Max brake system produced by that company complies with Federal standards. You noted that International Transquip has referenced a June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS.

NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment complies with applicable safety standards. I would emphasize that NHTSA has not issued any statement that could be read as "agreement" that the Mini-Max brake complies with FMVSS No. 121.

We are enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to Navistar which discusses NHTSA's position concerning the June 6, 1984 letter from BMCS. The letter also notes that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised a number of issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and two related interpretation letters, to International Transquip and the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2768).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

January 24, 1985

Mr. Richard Radlinski Manager, Brake Research NHSTA P. O. BOX 37 East Liberty, OH 43319

Subject: Mini-Max Brake

Dear Dick:

As per our discussion, please find a complete folder and cover letter from International Transquip Industries, Inc., manufacturers of the subject brake. Of particular concern to me is their reference to "compliance to the brake standards", by NHSTA and BMCS. "All agree that it complies to the standards."

In their literature, they make reference to a letter from BMCS (on US DOT stationary), dated June 6, 1984, which seemingly meets the parking requirements of NHSTA. All is attached for your information and reference. Even though this response from BMCS is related to a change notice, it is being interpreted as "full compliance" to FMVSS 121.

Your written clarification of this matter would be most helpful.

Very truly yours,

P.T. BRAKE LINING COMPANY, INC.

Carl R. Walker Manager, Technical Sales & Service

CRW/mdp

Enclosure

cc: Steven Doyle Jim Rabith

ID: 86-2.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Donald H. Giberson -- Assistant Director, State of New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director Division of Motor Vehicles Department of Law and Public Safety State of New Jersey 26 South Montgomery Street Trenton, NJ 08666

This responds to your request for an interpretation of FMVSS No. 121, Air Brake Systems. You asked whether vehicles equipped with "Mini-Max" brakes, produced by International Transquip Industries, Inc., comply with the standard. You stated that since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. Your question is responded to below. We note that Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40 is administered by the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS) rather than by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We have sent a copy of this correspondence to BMCS in order that they may respond to that part of your request.

By way of background information, NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its vehicles or equipment comply with applicable safety standards. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Section S5.6.3 provides in relevant part:

The parking brake system shall be capable of achieving the minimum performance specified in either S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 with any single leakage-type failure, in any other brake system, of a part designed to contain compressed air or brake fluid (except failure of a component of a brake chamber housing). . . .

The single diaphragm used in the Mini-Max brake is common to both the service and parking brake systems. As part of the service brake system, it is part of a brake system "other" than the parking brake system. Therefore, since the diaphragm is not a component of a brake chamber housing, section S5.6.3 requires that a vehicle must be able to achieve the minimum performance specified either in S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure.

We do not have sufficient data to determine whether particular vehicles equipped with Mini-Max brakes would meet the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 in the event of a diaphragm failure. The answer to that question could depend on the nature of the particular vehicle. It is possible, of course, that a vehicle could be capable of meeting the requirements of S5.6.1 or S5.6.2 as a result of the braking force provided by the other parking brakes whose diaphragms have not failed.

We note that the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has raised this issue and other issues relating to the compliance and overall safety of Mini-Max brakes in connection with a petition for rulemaking, and that International Transquip has submitted comments on CHP's analysis. We have enclosed for your information a notice granting the CHP petition and an interpretation letter to International Transquip. The CHP and Mini-Max submissions have been placed in the Petitions for Rulemaking (PRM) Docket for FMVSS No. 121. If you desire copies of those submissions, please contact: Docket Section, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 (202-426-2768).

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosures

Jeffrey R. Miller, Chief Counsel Office of Rule Making U. S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Miller:

Recently I have received several inquiries regarding the legality of the Mini-Max air actuated mechanically held air brake system judging from the technical data supplied by the manufacturer, International Transquip Industries Inc., the Mini-Max brake chambers do not contain the heavy. Since the heavy spring is omitted and only a single diaphragm is used in the Mini-Max, there is no way the brake can function if the diaphragm ruptures. In view of the foregoing , it is questionable as to whether the Min-Max complies with FMVSS-121 and Motor Carrier Regulation 393.40. I would be appreciative if you could clarify this matter.

Sincerely,

Donald H. Giberson Assistant Director

DHG/WH/rc

Enclosure Omitted.

ID: 86-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/09/86

FROM: NIROSHI NORIYOSHI -- EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER MAZDA

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TITLE: REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION - FMVSS 101; CONTROLS AND DISPLAYS AND FMVSS 102; TRANSMISSION SHIFT LEVER SEQUENCE, STARTER INTERLOCK, AND TRANSMISSION BRAKING EFFECT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 12/24/86 TO HIROSHI MORI YOSHI FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A29 (4), STD 101 AND 102

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones:

Mazda (North America), Inc., on behalf of Mazda Motor Corporation, requests interpretation of certain provisions of FMVSS 10:, Controls and Displays and FMVSS 102, Transmission Shift Lever Sequence, Starter Interlock, and Transmission Braking Effect. The specific provisions relate to the conditions of visibility for the gear position indicator of an automatic transmission.

Mazda is considering the application of LED's located within the instrument panel for use in automatic transmission gear position identification. The envisioned system would conform with all applicable requirements when the ignition switch is in the on and start position, but would not otherwise be visible when deactivation of the vehicle's main electrical system occurred by placing the ignition switch in the accessory or off position. The gear shift selector, mounted on the steering column, would be provided with embossed position indicators conforming to FMVSS 102, except that the identifiers would only be visible from the side of the steering column and thereby require the driver to lean forward and to the right for visual confirmation of the automatic gear position.

FMVSS 101.5(a) requires, by way conference to Table 2, the automatic gear position indicator of a vehicle meet the requirements of the standard for location, identification, and

illumination. Specifically, the automatic gear position indicator must be visible to a driver restrained by the crash protection equipment provided and adjusted in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. FMVSS 102.3.2 additionally requires the shift lever position indicator of automatic transmissions be displayed in view of the driver.

In past interpretations requested by Ford and Porache, the Agency has concluded that FMVSS 102.3.2 requires the gear position indicator to be visible regardless of the operating mode of the engine. However, the Agency has not had an opportunity to consider the case of multiple and complementary indicators that individually may not be in conference with the Standards, but collectively would in fact provide indication of gear selection "permanently in view of the driver". The systems would complement each other by providing a clear and unmistakable indication directly before the driver when the engine is activated and by providing a permanent visual cue that can be accessed with little inconvenience by the driver in all other circumstances. Therefore, Mazda believes this system would conform with the applicable provisions of FMVSS 101 and 102.

Accordingly, Mazda requests that the Agency consider our conclusion and comment on the determination that this combination of indicators can be considered "permanently displayed in view of the driver". Also, please clarify the meaning of "view of the driver". It is now possible, with the use of emergency locking retractors, that the driver may lean forward and later return to the normal driving posture with no "misadjustment" of the vehicle's restraint system. Under such conditions, would the embossed automatic gear selection identifiers be considered within the driver's field of view while the vehicle is not activated? Please discuss your conclusion.

Thank you for your consideration of this issue. Mazda is aware that the Agency is not able to approve actions taken by manufacturers. However, we do desire to obtain the opinion of the Agency in this matter. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ken Tashima at the address or telephone number above.

Sincerly,

ID: 86-2.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/01/86 EST

FROM: Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek -- Chief of Machinery Plant, Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 2/17/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Ralph Trimarchi (Std. 110; Std. 119; Std. 120; Std. 109)

TEXT:

AIR MAIL Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant Nova Hut Klementa Gottwalda n.p., 707 02 Ostrava 7 CZECHOSLOVAKIA

Dear Mr. Vapenicek:

This responds to your letter concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120, Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger Cars. You stated that the dimensions of your rims comply with dimensional specifications of the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization. You asked whether disc wheels provided with certain information can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards. Your question is responded to below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to ensure that its motor vehicles or equipment comply with applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

You provided the following example of your disc wheel marking on the attachment face of the disc:

(b) 8,0-20 (c) DOT-E (d) symbol of the manufacturer (e) 6 87

You stated that the information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of your multipiece rim and that height and depth of the marking meets the requirements of S5.2 of Standard No. 120.

Section S5.2 states: . . . each rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a singlepiece wheel, wheel disc shall be marked with the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph . . . . The information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the weather side. In the case of rims of multipiece construction, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) of this paragraph shall appear on the rim base and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) of this paragraph shall also appear on each other part of the rim.

Your letter indicates that you plan to place your disc wheel marking "on the attachment face of disc." While it is not clear what you mean by the term attachment face of disc, I would like to note several requirements specified by section S5.2 for marking location. First, the marking must be placed on the rim, except that for singlepiece wheels manufacturers have the option of placing the marking on the wheel disc. Thus, assuming that your rim is a multipiece rim, the marking must be placed on the rim rather than the disc. Second, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) must be placed on the weather side. Section S4 provides a definition for the "weather side" of a rim. Third, for multipiece rims, the information listed in paragraphs (a) through (e) must appear on the rim base, and the information listed in paragraphs (b) and (d) must also appear on each other part of the rim. Section 54 provides a definition for "rim base."

Your sample disc wheel marking links by a hyphen the symbol "DOT" required by S5.2 (c) and the designation "E" required by S5.2(a). The symbol DOT constitutes a certification by the manufacturer of the rim that the rim complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, while the designation E indicates the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions, i.e., in your case, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization. While NHTSA expects the information provided in paragraphs (a), (b) , and (c) to be grouped together, we do not recommend linking "DOT" and "E" by a hyphen. These symbols provide two different types of information, and the inclusion of a hyphen could cause confusion.

The information required by S5.2(b) is "(t)he rim size designation, and in the case of multipiece rims, the rim type designation. For example: 20 x 5.50, or 20 x 5.5. " Your sample disc wheel marking is 8,O-20. I note first that the rim size designation (defined in S4 as "rim diameter and width") should use the symbol "x" between the width and diameter, as indicated by S5.2(b)'s example. Moreover, for multipiece rims, S5.2(b) requires both the rim size designation and the rim type designation. S4 defines the term "rim type designation" as "the industry or manufacturer's designation for a rim by style or code." If your disc wheel is a multipiece rim, the disc wheel marking should include the rim type designation.

S5.2(c) requires a designation that identifies the manufacturer of the rim by name, trademark, or symbol. Your letter indicates that you plan to use a symbol. I note that, as discussed in an interpretation letter dated February 17, 1986 (copy enclosed), 49 CFR Part 551 requires rim manufacturers to designate a permanent resident of the United States as the manufacturer's agent for service of process in this country. Among other things, the designation of agent must contain information concerning marks, trade names, or other designations of origin of any of the manufacturer's wheels and rims that do not bear its name.

The information in your sample disc wheel marking under (e) is consistent with one of the examples provided in S5.2 (e) to indicate the month and year of manufacturer.

Sincerely,

Erika Z Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure (see 2/17/86 letter from Erika Z. Jones to Ralph Trimarchi)

Dear Sirs,

We take the liberty of asking you for your advice concerning the disc wheels. As the requirements of S571,120 differ from those on windshields or tires when symbol DOT is concerned we are not quite sure whether our disc wheels marking meets the requirements. We would like to mention that dimensions of our rims comply with dimensional specifications required by the EUROPEAN TYRE AND RIM TECHNICAL ORGANIZATION.

An example of our disc wheel marking on the attachment face of disc (according to S 571.120):

(b) 8,0-20 (c) DOT-E (d) symbol of the manufacturer (e) 6 87

The information listed in (b) and (d) also appears on every part of our multipiece rim as specified in S 571.120 S5.2. Height and depth of the marking meet the requirements of S 571.120 S5.2.

Be so kind, please, and let us know whether a disc wheel provided with the information (b), (c), (d) and (e) above can be regarded as complying with the requirements of U.S. standards.

We are looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Dipl.-Ing. F. Vapenicek Chief of Machinery Plant

ID: 86-2.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/14/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Grace Cheng -- Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center (Taiwan)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Grace Cheng Yue Loong Motor Engineering Center P.O. Box 510 Taoyuan, Taiwan 330 REPUBLIC OF CHINA Dear Ms. Cheng: Thank you for your letter of February 5, 1986, concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You asked whether S4.1.2.3.1(a) of the standard requires a vehicle with a manual, nondetachable Type 2 safety belt assembly that conforms to Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of the standard. However, we have recently set 30 mph frontal crash protection requirements for manual Type 2 safety belts used in the frontal outboard seating positions in future passenger cars. The dynamic test requirement for manual safety belts would go into effect on September 1, 1989, if the automatic restraint requirement of Standard No. 208 is rescinded. A copy of the notice on dynamic testing of manual safety belts is enclosed. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Original Signed By Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel Enclosure

Dear Sirs;

It is so kind of you to solve our continuous inquiries. Here we would like to ask you one question as follows:

In regard to FMVSS 208, if we choose the third option S4.1.2.3.1(a) to equipped our cars with type 2 seat belt assemblies (nondetachable) that conform to FMVSS 209, then should our cars still be required to meet the frontal crash protection requirements of S 5.1 in a perpendicular impact?

Please answer us sooner and it will be highly appreciated.

Librarian Grace Cheng

ID: 86-2.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/15/86

FROM: FRANCISCO DEETAN -- FRG INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

TO: NHTSA

TITLE: HS 7 FORM APPLICATION APPROVAL FOR REAR WINDOW 3RD STOP LIGHT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 07/23/86 EST, TO FRANCISCO DEETAN FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A29(3); STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Sirs,

Concerning our importation of rear window 3rd stop light which meets requirement for a high mounted brake light: Our company have prepared a trial order for more or less Three Thousand Dollars worth of rear window 3rd stop light importation, but before the letter of credit is opened we would like to get your approval for the products we will import, So, please inform and assist us in getting your HS-7 permit in compliance with FMVSS 108 requirement; Enclosed is our brochure and proform invoice copy from our supplier aboard, in case your good office need the sample test of the rear window 3rd stop light which we wish to import, please urgent inform us and indicate whom we should send it to, we will send you a sample immediately upon we receive you advise.

Thank you in advance for you kind co-operation, we remain,

Very Truly Yours,

ID: 86-2.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/16/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Clarence M. Ditlow

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of February 3, 1986, concerning the implementation of the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You expressed concern about the possible disconnection of detachable automatic belts by vehicle dealers and asked how the prohibitions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act would apply to such a situation.

As you pointed out, section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act prohibits commercial businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative items of safety equipment. The section provides that:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or 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 . . . .

In interpreting section 108(a)(2)(A), the agency has said that commercial businesses are prohibited from knowingly removing, altering or degrading an item of safety equipment required by our standards. Thus, if a commercial business were to remove an automatic belt, it would be a clear violation of section 108(a)(2)(A). However, that situation is quite different from a commercial business demonstrating an aspect of performance required by a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

For some time, the agency has recognized that it is important to require automatic belts to have a mechanism to permit the release of the belt after a crash. Therefore, on April 25, 1974 (39 FR 14593), the agency adopted a provision in Standard No. 208 which requires all automatic belt systems to incorporate an emergency release mechanism. The agency has also recognized that it is important for consumers to know how such systems operate. The agency has fully expected vehicle dealers and others to play a helpful role in providing that information to the consumer. For example, in November (Illegible Word) NHTSA amended Standard No. 208 to permit the use of alternative types of emergency releases in automatic belts. In adopting that amendment, the agency emphasized that it did not believe that "the use of alternative release mechanisms will cause serious occupant egress problems if manufacturers take precautions to instruct vehicle owners how the systems work through the owner's manual and through their dealers." (43 FR 52494)

In addition to demonstrating how to get out of the automatic safety belt in an emergency, dealers will also have to show their customers how to gain access to the center seating position in a bench seat car equipped with automatic safety belts. Thus, given the need to educate the public about how the automatic restraint system functions, we do not consider it to be a violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) for a dealer to unbuckle or help consumers unbuckle their automatic safety belts. Hence, we cannot issue the legal interpretation you requested. We would expect that when dealers explain how an automatic belt system operates, they will also emphasize the important safety benefits of the automatic belts.

SINCERELY,

February 6, 1986

Erika Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Ms. Jones:

In just six months, the auto industry must implement the single most important safety standard ever issued by the federal government -- the passive restraint requirement of FMVSS 208. How the industry carries out implementation will in large part determine the ultimate effectiveness of the standard. If the manufacturers make a good faith effort to comply with well-designed passive restraint systems, then at least 9,000 lives will be saved and 100,000 serious injuries prevented each year after full implementation.

Unfortunately, it appears that the world's largest auto maker, General Motors, will attempt to undermine this lifesaving standard by installing cumbersome automatic seat belts with window shade retractors that can be detached so easily they will encourage disconnection by dealers and consumers. [The GM automatic belt has a buckle to disconnect it with the window shade retractor conveniently rolling the loose belt up into the retractor.] GM is introducing this system over the express objections of safety groups and the criticism of the Supreme Court which asked in its unanimous decision overturning DOT's revocation of the passive restraint standard whether such automatic belt disconnects should be outlawed. Moreover, GM's easy-to-release but hard-to-wear automatic belts are particularly reprehensible given the fact that a smaller auto manufacturer, Volkswagen, has sold for the past ten years an automatic belt that is so easy to use that consumers don't want to disconnect it. DOT's own studies of the VW "easy rider" automatic belt show usage of over 80%. In contrast, GM's "hard rider" automatic belt is unlikely to obtain more than 15% usage.

Section 108 (a) (2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits any dealer from "knowingly [rendering] inoperative, in whole or in part, any device . . . installed . . . in a motor vehicle . . . in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard." The Center believes this clearly prohibits dealers from unbuckling or helping consumers to unbuckle their automatic seat belts. If they do so, they are liable for a $ 1,000 fine per car under Section 109 of the Act. Since the GM hard rider automatic belts are so cumbersome yet easy to disconnect, many GM dealers are likely to disconnect the automatic belts to better sell the cars in view of the competition from other manufacturers who have opted for easy rider automatic belts.

Accordingly, the Center petitions the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue an interpretive legal opinion prior to the beginning of the 1987 model year that it is illegal for dealers to disconnect or help consumers to disconnect automatic belts under Section 108 of the Act and that violating dealers are subject to a $ 1,000 per vehicle fine.

Clarence M. Ditlow III Executive Director

cc: Sen. John Danforth Rep. Tim Wirth

ID: 86-2.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Carol Dingledy

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter to Steve Kratzke of my staff, asking several questions about the effects of an amendment to the buckle force requirements in Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR @ 571.213). Buckles used on child restraints manufactured on or after February 16, 1986, must release with a minimum of 9 pounds force and a maximum of 14 pounds force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981, and February 15, 1986, were required to release with a minimum of 12 pounds applied force and a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. Buckles used on child restraints manufactured before January 1, 1981, were required to release with a maximum of 20 pounds applied force. You asked with which buckle release force requirements replacement buckles provided by your company should comply. Assuming that the replacement buckles are to be installed by you or dealers, distributors, or repair businesses, the answer is that the buckles may, at your option, comply with either the release force requirements applicable to child restraint buckles as of the date of manufacture of the child restraint or with the current buckle release force requirements.

Standard No. 213, like all of our safety standards applicable to items of motor vehicle equipment, does not apply to the equipment after its first purchase in good faith for purposes other than resale. This general rule is, however, limited by the provisions of section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)), which specifies: "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 . . . ." Please note that these prohibitions do not apply to the child restraint owner rendering inoperative some element of design installed on his or her child restraint. Hence, replacement buckles that are sold to and installed by child restraint owners are not required to comply with the provisions of Standard No. 213.

However, if you as a manufacturer, or any dealers, distributors, or repair businesses were to remove complying buckles from a child restraint and replace them with buckles that did not comply with Standard No. 213, this would violate section 108(a)(2)(A). This result arises because buckles with the specified release force levels were installed on an item of motor vehicle equipment (the child restraint system) in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard (Standard No. 213). Section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398) specifies that each violation of section 108(a)(2)(A) subjects the violator to a potential $ 1,000 civil penalty.

Assuming that you or your dealers and distributors will be installing the replacement buckles, section 108(a)(2)(A) gives you an option of which release force requirements the replacement buckles must meet. In connection with several other standards that have been amended, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has stated its opinion that a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business does not knowingly render inoperative an element of design by replacing components installed in satisfaction of a safety standard with other components used in newer items of the same type in satisfaction of the same standard, even if the newer version of the standard imposes less stringent performance requirements. See, for example, the enclosed opinion issued when Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems, was amended; 42 FR 26279, May 23, 1977. In this context, this opinion means that child restraint manufacturers may install replacement buckles that either:

1. comply with the requirements of Standard No. 213 as of the date the child restraint was manufactured; or

2. comply with the current requirements of Standard No. 213.

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

Sincerely,

Enclosure

ATTACH.

COSCO INC.

OCC 0062

Steve Kratsky -- NHTSA, Office of Chief Counsel

January 16, 1986

Dear Mr. Kratsky,

I am interested in receiving clarification about the FMVSS 213 amendment for reduction of pressure required to operate buckles on child restraints. This amendment, effective February 16, 1986, will require child restraints to have buckles with a release pressure of not less than 9 or more that 14 pounds, instead of the original 12 pounds minimum.

My questions regarding the provision of replacement buckles for child restraints are as follows:

1. Which type buckle will need to be provided for child restraints manufactured prior to January 1, 1981?

2. Must we provide 12 pound minimum pressure buckles for child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981 and February 16, 1986 so they will continue to be in compliance with the FMVSS 213 standard in effect at time of manufacture?

3. Must we provide buckles meeting the amendment requirements for child restraints manufactured between January 1, 1981 and February 16, 1986 so they will be in compliance with the current FMVSS 213 standard as amended?

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Carol Dingledy -- Communications Supervisor

ID: 86-2.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/18/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: David E. Martin -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, GM

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. David E. Martin Director Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation 30400 Mound Road Warren, MI 48090-9015

Thank you for your letter of July 30, 1985, to Administrator Steed concerning the requirements of Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. Your letter was referred to my office for reply. I regret the delay in our response.

You asked the agency to reconsider its interpretation of the requirements of S4.1.1 of the standard which requires the installation of "seat belt anchorages for a Type 2 seat belt assembly" at certain positions in motor vehicles. You specifically asked that we issue a new interpretation that S4.1.1 is satisfied by installation of safety belt anchorages utilized by a safety belt meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You also asked that if a new interpretation could not be issued, then the agency should treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking. As discussed below, the agency believes that the change you seek can only be made by a rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, as you requested, we will treat your letter as a petition for rulemaking, which is granted.

You offered several arguments in support of your view that the existing language of S4.1.1 is satisfied if a passenger car is equipped with anchorages for safety belts meeting the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 208. You noted that the definition of a Type 2 safety belt assembly set forth in S3 of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints and does not differentiate between manual and automatic belts. You also noted that S4.3(j) of Standard no. 209 applies to Type 1 and Type 2 belts and that the agency has interpreted section S4.3(j) to apply to both automatic and manual safety belts.

You also argued that redundant anchorages would not be used since an owner would not purchase an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door-anchored safety belt were available from the manufacturer. You said this would be particularly true of the door-mounted detachable automatic safety belts General Motors intends to use. In addition, you pointed out that the agency April 1985 proposal to require dynamic testing of manual belts also supports the elimination of the requirement for additional anchorages. You noted that the agency proposed that dynamically-tested manual belts would be exempt from the anchorage location requirements of Standard No. 210. Thus, a manufacturer may have anchorages outside of Standard No. 210 location zones, but the automatic belts attached to the anchorages would meet the occupant protection requirements of Standard No. 205. You said that a manual belt attached to anchorages within Standard No. 201's zone might not meet Standard No. 208's occupant protection requirements.

Finally, you said that the cost impact of providing the additional anchorages is not minimal. You said that "the cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints."

While we believe that you have raised a number of important issues concerning the current requirements of Standard No. 210, we believe that given the specific language of S4.1.1, any change to those requirements can only be made through a rulemaking proceeding. Standard No. 210, as currently written, specifically refers to providing anchorages for a Type 2 safety belt. The agency his consistently recognized a distinction between Type 2 belts and automatic belts. That distinction is based on a comparison of the design features of a two point automatic belt with those of a Type 2 lap/shoulder safety belt. Standard No. 209 defines a seat belt assembly as "a strap, webbing, or similar device" used to secure a person in a crash. Under Standard No. 203. a Type 2 seat belt assembly is defined as a strap, webbing or similar device which provides "pelvic and upper torso restraint." Thus, a Type 2 safety belt provides webbing to restrain both the pelvis and upper torso and requires three anchorages to be installed. In contrast, an automatic belt can use webbing to provide upper torso restraint, which would require two anchorages to install, and not have webbing to restrain the pelvis. Instead, a two point automatic belt relies on non-belt technology, such as a knee bolster, to restrain movement of the pelvis.

The agency recognized the design distinctions between Type 2 belts and automatic belts by specifically providing a separate definition of automatic belt in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208. In addition, the agency recognized a distinction between automatic and Type 2 belts by specifying in Standard No. 208 that an automatic belt may be used "in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by" S4 of the standard. The other seat belt assemblies required by 54 are Type 1 and Type 2 systems. To further contrast the distinction between automatic belts and Type 2 belts, S4.5.3.1 of Standard No. 208 specifically provides that "an automatic belt that provides only pelvic restraint may not be uses...to meet the requirements of any option under S4 and in place of any seat belt assembly otherwise required by that option."

Given these distinctions between a Type 2 and an automatic belt, we believe that the reference to a Type 2 belt in S4.1.1 of Standard No. 210 requires us to retain our current interpretation of that provision. However, we do believe you have raised important questions about whether that provision should be changed. We expect to begin rulemaking shortly on this issue.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

USG 2421

July 30, 1985

The Honorable Diane Steed Administrator -- NHTSA

Docket 74-14, Notice 38

Dear Ms. Steed:

General Motors is currently developing new vehicle models which will be introduced concurrent with, or after, the start of the passive restraint phase-in period. This has necessitated a review of NHTSA FMVSS interpretations as they would apply to seat belt restraint systems. It is apparent from that review that several previous NHTSA interpretations do not comprehend current automatic seat belt technology.

Of specific concern to General Motors is NHTSA documentation which suggests that automatic seat belts are experimental and, therefore, not "Type 2" seat belts for the purposes of S4.1.1. of FMVSS 210. Without assurance that the position set forth in these NHTSA documents is no longer considered current by the agency, a manufacturer is faced with the prospect of having to add manual seat belt anchors into a vehicle even though automatic seat belts are to be installed.

1 A NHTSA position that additional manual belt anchors were necessary because of the "experimental" nature of automatic seat belts was first noted in Docket 72-23, Notice 5 (43 FR 53440, dated November 27, 1978) which granted a petition by General Motors to exempt automatic belts from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210. Most recently, the agency in its January 29, 1985 response to a letter from the Daihatsu Motor Company regarding the redundant anchor requirement reiterated that, "The exemption was provided for in the standard to allow manufacturers to experiment with various automatic belt designs."

While NHTSA's position that automatic seat belts are "experimental" was perhaps appropriate in 1978, we believe that a change is warranted in light of design developments and recent regulatory initiatives. Significant field experience has been gained over the last decade with automatic belt designs, e.g. the VW Rabbit and GM Chevette. In addition, FMVSS 208 rulemaking responses suggest that many manufacturers are currently developing such belt systems in anticipation of the passive restraint requirements. Finally, concern for public reaction to automatic seat belts, which is basic to the agency's use of the term "experimental" was discounted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in its July 17, 1984 final rule (Docket 74-14, Notice 36). Noting that most, if not all manufacturers, would be expected to use detachable automatic seatbelts, DOT stated that, "Detachable belts should alleviate some consumer concerns about automatic belts."

The aforementioned NHTSA letters of interpretation notwithstanding, there is existing regulatory language which General Motors believes supports a position that S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 is satis-fied if a passenger car is equipped with any belt restraint system meeting the performance requirements of FMVSS 208. Most compelling is the fact that the definition of a "Type 2" belt assembly, as set forth in S3 of FMVSS 209, is based solely on the existence of pelvic and upper torso restraints. The definition does not differentiate between manual and automatic belt systems. Further, S4.3 (j) of FMVSS 209 states that the requirements of that section apply to Type 1 and Type 2 belt systems. This has been interpreted by the agency to include both manual and automatic seat belt systems. (See NHTSA letter of interpretation to Volkswagon, dated August 7, 1981.)

A review of FMVSS 210 regulatory history also supports a position that seat belt performance is neither assured nor necessarily limited by anchor locations. While vehicles equipped with manual belts meeting the existing anchorage location requirements of S4.3.1 of FMVSS 210 have demonstrated excellent performance in the field, this experience should not be interpreted as establishing that other anchorage locations would not have produced equally good results. In fact a parametric study by General Motors, which was provided to NHTSA in 1979 (USG 1763), suggests that specific vehicle interior parameters, such as occupant proximity to steering columns, instrument panel, etc., could have more influence on measured dummy data than some of the restraint parameters. A copy of that study is attached.

While the above discussion deals with the regulatory aspects of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210, there are additional compelling reasons for a new interpretation of that section. These reasons are based on practical implications as well as recent rulemaking actions that bear on the existing interpretations.

Most importantly, the redundant anchors would very likely never be used. It is highly improbable that a customer would demand an aftermarket manual belt intended to be anchored in the vehicle "B" pillar, if a door anchored belt were available from the manufacturer as a replacement for the OEM automatic seat belt. This would be true whether or not the passive restraint requirements were eventually rescinded. As noted in General Motors' response to Docket 74-14; Notice 36 (USG 2284), automatic seat belt designs would need to be detachable to ensure public acceptability. As a result, a detachable automatic seat belt design would also be usable as a manual seat belt. (See Attachment 6 of USG 22B4). This "convertibility" feature would be expected to further reduce the likelihood of replacement.

The redundant seat belt anchor issue is clouded by NHTSA's recent manual belt dynamic test proposal in Docket 74-14, Notice 38. If enacted, that proposal would provide manual belts with the same exemption from the anchorage location requirements in FMVSS 210 now afforded automatic belts. This would allow manufacturers to find an optimum anchor location for manual belt systems on the basis of best overall performance. With this scenario, the S4.1.1 requirement in FMVSS 210 becomes even more inappropriate in that it may not reflect a belt anchor location needed to meet the FMVSS 208 injury criteria.

General Motors is concerned that cost factors may have been understated and this may have misled NHTSA regarding the need for a review of the current S4.1.1 interpretation. This is suggested by the agency's denial of a 1981 Toyo Kogyo petition (46 FR 54391) wherein it was stated that, ".the cost increase associated with these additional anchorages is minimal at best". The cost penalty to General Motors customers would be approximately $6,000,000 annually when all vehicles were redesigned, assuming that the vehicles were required to incorporate automatic restraints.

In summary, it is General Motors view that the requirements of S4.1.1 in FMVSS 210 would be satisfied by the vehicle seat belt anchors utilized by any belt restraint system that meets the performance requirements of FMVSS 208 and requests that the agency issue an interpretation to that effect. That interpretation would acknowledge that a three-point automatic belt qualifies as a Type 2 belt; therefore, additional anchors would not be required. If such interpretation is not possible, General Motors requests notification of that fact and further requests that this letter be treated as a petition for amendment of S4.1.1 of FMVSS 210 in a manner which supports General Motors view, as set forth above.

Sincerely,

David E. Martin, Director Automotive Safety Engineering cc: B. Felrice G. Hunter S. Esch Docket 74-14, Notice 38

ID: 86-2.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/21/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Dave Trowbridge

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sale Creation Windows of Indiana, Inc. P.O. Box 1046 Elkhart, Indiana 46515

Dear Mr. Trowbridge:

This is in reply to your letter of February 25, 1986, with reference to a design for a center high-mounted stop lamp intended for pickup covers or shells. You have asked for our advice regarding the applicability of Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

The center high-mounted stop lamp is required only on passenger cars, and its specifications apply only to original or replacement equipment on cars manufactured on or after September 1, 1985. There are no requirements for aftermarket applications such as you envision. The legality of your device would be determined under the laws of a State where the lamp is installed or used.

We would recommend, however, that you attempt to conform your device as closely as possible to Federal requirements, such as an illuminated lens area of not less than 4 square inches, and mounted in such a manner as to minimize reflections in the rear glass. A copy of the Federal standard is enclosed.

I hope that this answers your questions. We appreciate your interest in motor vehicle safety.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

February 25, 1986 Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Assn. 400 7th Street Southwest Washington, DC 20590

Gentlemen:

We are manufacturers of custom windows and doors for the recreational vehicle market, automotive aftermarket and second party vehicle manufacturers. Of particular concern is our production and design of the "3rd stop light" to our door assemblies for pickup cover doors (see attached).

Our doors are supplied to manufacturers of these covers or shells and will be supplied with this added safety feature.

Your assistance, at your earliest possible convenience, is appreciated in advance regarding those pertinent and applicable NHTSA, FMVSS or other specifications that may apply to the mounting of this light assembly to the inside of the door assemblies we manufacture for our customers. The light assembly itself will be either sourced or manufactured with concern for those specifications that may apply to the light and its visibility, wiring, etc.

Cordially, Dave Trowbridge Aftermarket Sales

DT/jb

Attachment