ID: 12625.wkm

Mr. Pedro Matos
Quality Manager
CNB/CAMAC
Portugal

Dear Mr. Matos:

This responds to your telefax of October 23, 1996, to this office in which you asked two questions about Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 109, New Pneumatic Tires. You first asked why, in Table II of Appendix A, tires with a specified maximum load of 300 kiloPascals (kPa) are tested at a lower inflation pressure than tires for which the specified maximum load is 36 pounds per square inch (psi). You then asked why, in the kPa section of Table II, the test inflation pressures increase then decrease as the maximum kPa inflation pressures increase.

I have enclosed several notices that explain the reasons for these differing test inflation pressures. In 1977 Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) and the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) petitioned this agency to amend FMVSS No. 109 to permit production of a new P-type tire that was designed to use a higher maximum inflation pressure than the standard 240 kPa then permitted by the standard, but with no increase in load levels. In response to those petitions, this agency amended the standard to include a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 300 kPa because tires with higher inflation pressures have less rolling resistance which may result in increased fuel economy. However, since there would be no increase in load levels, the agency specified that the inflation pressures at which those tires would be tested would remain the same, that is, 180 and 220 kPa respectively (Enclosures 1 and 2).

Then in 1988, the European Tyre and Rim Technical Organisation (ETRTO) petitioned this agency to further increase the maximum inflation pressure, citing requests from member manufacturers. ETRTO petitioned this agency to amend FMVSS No. 109 to permit an inflation pressure of 340 kPa so that the standard maximum inflation pressure then in effect for reinforced tires, 280 kPa, could be increased for special performance requirements, but again, with no increase in tire load capacity. The agency granted the ETRTO petition citing the Goodyear/RMA petition as precedent. Again, because the requested higher inflation pressure carried no increase in load levels, the agency specified that the test pressures for the 340 kPa tires would remain at 220 and 260 respectively (Enclosures 3 and 4).

The latest maximum inflation pressure, 350 kPa, was added to the standard effective August 31, 1994. The test inflation pressures remain the same as the 240 and 300 kPa maximum pressures, namely 180 and 220 kPa respectively, for the same reasons as explained above (Enclosure 5).

I hope this explanation is helpful to you. For your information, I am also enclosing a copy of the latest version of FMVSS No. 109 (as of October 1, 1995) (Enclosure 6). If you have any further questions or need additional information with respect to our tire standards, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:109

d:12/5/96

ID: 12626.MLS

Mr. Eric M. Zimelman
6920 S.W. 44th Street, Suite 210
Miami, FL 33155

Dear Mr. Zimelman:

This responds to your letter asking whether your invention would "pose a problem" with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. You met with our technical staff, including Mr. Jerome Kossar, Mr. George Mouchahoir, and Ms. Lori Summers, to discuss your invention, which is a retractable shield placed over safety seats for children up to 20 pounds. You state that the retractable shield "would be far enough away from the child's head that the child would not pitch forward enough to come in contact with it." You further state that the shield's material is a tough, flexible plastic that is transparent and has holes for breathing.

I note that you marked "confidential" on your letter. In a November 4, 1996, telephone conversation with Mr. Marvin Shaw of my staff, you stated that as long as the diagrams remain confidential, you had no objection to our placing your letter in the public docket.

By way of background information, this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the authority to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not, however, approve or certify any vehicles or items of equipment. The following represents our opinion based on the information in your letter.

There is currently no FMVSS that directly applies to your product. Our standard for "child restraint systems," FMVSS No. 213, applies to "any device except Type I or Type II seat belts, designed for use in a motor vehicle or aircraft to restrain, seat, or position children who weigh 50 pounds or less." (S4 of FMVSS No. 213) The standard does not apply to child seat accessories that are sold separately from the child seats, such as an aftermarket retractable shield.

While no Federal safety standard applies to the retractable shield, your product is considered to be an item of motor vehicle equipment. As a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment, you are subject to the requirements of 49 United States Code 30118-30121 concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety related defects. I have enclosed an information sheet that briefly describes those and other manufacturer responsibilities. In the event that you or NHTSA determines that your product contains a safety-related defect, you would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

In addition, a motor vehicle manufacturer, distributor, dealer or repair business is prohibited by our statute from installing the retractable shield if the installation "makes inoperative" compliance with any safety standard, such as FMVSS No. 213.

You should be aware that some elements of design incorporated in child restraint systems in compliance with FMVSS No. 213 might be affected by adding your retractable shield. In particular, under section S5.7, all child restraint systems are required to incorporate the flammability resistance requirements of S4 of FMVSS No. 302. Also, child restraint systems recommended for use by children weighing less than 20 pounds must comply with paragraph S5.2.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213. That paragraph requires that each child restraint surface contactable by the child dummy's head during the crash test shall be covered with slow recovery energy absorbing materials with specified characteristics. This requirement ensures that children riding in these child restraints will not suffer unnecessary head injuries during crashes. If the installation of your retractable shield by a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business would impair features provided in compliance with these or other provisions of the standard, then the entities would make inoperative a Federally required element of design in violation of the statute.

The "make inoperative" prohibition does not apply to individual owners who install equipment on their own child restraints systems. Thus, individual owners may install any item of motor vehicle equipment regardless of its effect on compliance with Federal motor vehicle safety standards. However, NHTSA encourages owners not to degrade the safety of their child restraints.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact Marvin Shaw of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

ref:213

d:12/2/96

ID: 12632.wkm

Mr. Tom Burkhardt
Dynastar International
25133 Anza Drive, Suite A
Santa Clarita, CA 91355

Dear Mr. Burkhardt:

This responds to your telefax dated October 21, 1996, addressed to Walter Myers of my staff and your telephone conversations with Mr. Myers on October 18 and 23, 1996. You stated that your company received a shipment of passenger car tires that were not marked with the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Standards (UTQGS) ratings and asked that this agency waive "the stamping of UTGQ (sic)." Please be advised that this agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has no authority to waive the UTQGS requirements.

You stated that on October 2, 1996 your company received about 5,000 Michelin MXF tires of two different sizes that you think were produced in Thailand, and that "this is the first time that this tire has been imported." In response to your October 18 telephone conversation, Mr. Myers telefaxed to you copies of four previous interpretation letters issued by this office explaining the various UTQGS labeling requirements and their exceptions. In your October 23 conversation, you told Mr. Myers that you had read the letters and asked if we had any advice for you.

The UTQGS, found at 49 Code of Federal Regulations, 575.104 (copy enclosed), require that all new tires sold in the United States be graded for treadwear, traction, and temperature resistance, and that those grades or ratings be marked on the sidewall of each tire (575.104(d)(1)(i)(A)).

In addition, the ratings for each individual tire must be shown and explained on labels attached to the tread of each tire so as not to be easily removable ((d)(1)(i)(B)(2)). There are, however, two exceptions to the above requirements:

1. Tires of a new tire line need not have the UTQGS ratings marked on the sidewalls if the tires were manufactured within the first six months of production of the tire line ((d)(1)(i)(A)). The tread label required by (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) is still required, however.
2. Limited production tires are excluded from all UTQGS requirements. In order to qualify as limited production tires, a tire must meet all the following criteria (575.104(c)(2)):
   1. Total annual domestic production or importation into the United States of tires of the same design and size by either the manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 15,000 tires;
   2. The tire's size must not have been listed as a vehicle manufacturer's recommended tire size designation for new motor vehicles domestically produced or imported in quantities greater than 10,000 during the year prior to the tire's manufacture; and
   3. The total annual domestic production or importation by the tire's manufacturer or brand name owner may not exceed 35,000 tires.

Since Michelin is a major domestic producer and importer of tires, it is unlikely that the tires in question could qualify as limited production tires (exception b). If they qualify as tires of a new tire line, however, you are free to prepare and attach tread labels to the tires in accordance with (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) and market them as described in exception a. If they do not meet either exception a or b, you may not market the tires in the United States until they comply with the UTQGS. Finally, if you are unable to bring these tires into compliance with the UTQGS, you are free to export them if the tires and the outside of their container are labeled for export (49 U.S. Code 30112(b)(3)) (copy enclosed).

One further matter. The tires must meet the strength, performance, and labeling requirements of Federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 109, New pneumatic tires (copy enclosed), and the letters "DOT" must be marked on the tire sidewalls to indicate such compliance. Like the UTQGS, those requirements are also prerequisite to the sale of any passenger car tires in the United States.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or require additional information, feel free to contact Mr. Myers at this address or at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
Enclosures
ref:575
d:11/6/96

ID: 12633.WKM

Mr. D. F. Paine
Quality Assurance Coordinator
Dunlop International Technology Ltd.
Post Office Box 504
Erdington, Birmingham B24 9QH, England

Dear Mr. Paine:

Your letter telefaxed on October 2, 1996 to Ms. Jeanette Greenfield of this agency has been referred to this office for reply.

You stated that one of Dunlop's overseas divisions, Dunlop Zambia Ltd., although not intending to export tires to the United States, wishes to "DOT mark its Light and Heavy Truck tire ranges to satisfy a local commercial requirement." You asked whether a manufacturer's identification mark can be assigned to Dunlop Zambia without a resident agent being appointed in the United States or prior to a resident agent being appointed. The answer is no.

Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 574, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping (copy enclosed), requires at section 574.5 that a tire manaufacturer place a tire identification number on the sidewall of each tire it manufactures. The purpose of this requirement is to facilitate the recall of tires that are found to be in noncompliance with applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards or that are found to contain a safety defect. The first group of digits in the tire identification number is the manufacturer's identification mark or code, issued in accordance with section 574.6. That code is intended to provide both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the manufacturer the ability to identify the plant in which the defective tires were produced. Thus, issuance of a manufacturer's identification code to one that does not intend to market tires in the United States would not serve the purpose of the tire identification number.

You mentioned in your letter that you have a copy of 49 CFR Part 551, which in pertinent part requires each foreign producer of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment to appoint a resident agent in the United States for the service of legal process. To enforce that provision, it has long been NHTSA policy not to assign a manufacturer's identification mark unless the manufacturer has appointed a resident agent in the United States.

For the reasons stated above, NHTSA cannot at this time assign a manufacturer's identification code to Dunlop Zambia. If in the future Dunlop Zambia desires to export tires to the United States and files a valid designation of a resident agent, NHTSA will assign a manufacturer's identification code at that time.

I hope this information is helpful to you. Should you have any further questions or require any additional information, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or at (202) 366-2992, or fax (202) 366-3820.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:574

d:12/2/96

ID: 12654.ztv

Mr. Ernst Waldeck
Vice President
FER North America, Inc.
P.O. Box 2229
Birmingham, MI 48012-2229

Dear Mr. Waldeck:

This is in reply to your FAX of October 15, 1996, to Rich Van Iderstine of this agency requesting approval of a design proposal to place a combination front side marker lamp and reflector behind the front wheel house.

As you noted, Table IV of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108 requires front side marker lamps and reflectors to be located "as far to the front as practicable." The center of the combination device shown on the drawing you enclosed is 1222.6 mm from the front of the vehicle. In this location, it is behind the front wheel house. We surmise that this location is otherwise used for a turn signal repeater lamp in markets other than the United States.

As a general rule, it is initially the vehicle manufacturer that determines whether a specific location is "practicable" for its vehicle design. The agency will not contest that determination unless it is clearly erroneous. In this instance, we believe that it would be clearly erroneous to place the combination device at the location indicated. In that location, the combination device would not fulfill its intended function of indicating the forward edge of the vehicle. There appears to be ample room in front of the wheel house for location of the combination device so that it might more nearly fulfill that function. Unless the manufacturer can demonstrate convincingly that a location in front of the wheel house is not practicable, we would regard a location behind the wheel house as noncompliant with the requirements of Standard No. 108.

If you have any questions, you may refer them to Taylor Vinson of this Office (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:11/14/96

ID: 12666.ztv

Mr. Charles H. Fuller
President
Graphiclite Systems Inc.
P.O. Box 437
Tallmadge, Ohio 44278

Dear Mr. Fuller:

This is in reply to your letter of October 24, 1996, asking several questions about the relationship of your product, the Graphiclite, to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108.

You have told us that the Graphiclite, a 20 watt halogen light, "is being designed to be mounted on the sides, near the bottom, of trailers and trucks to illuminate the advertising graphics which are becoming more and more popular." You also enclosed a copy of an interpretative letter of this Office, dated August 19, 1988, on an earlier version of the product.

There are no affirmative requirements of Standard No. 108 with which additional and optional motor vehicle lighting equipment must comply. This equipment, if offered as original equipment, is subject only to the prohibition of paragraph S5.1.3 that it must not impair the effectiveness of the lighting equipment that the standard requires to be installed. This means that the answer to your questions 1,2,4, and 5 is no. Your question 3 is whether a demonstration of Graphiclite will be required in accordance with S5.1.3. The answer again is no. It is the responsibility of the truck or trailer manufacturer in certifying that its vehicles comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards to make the impairment determination. Unless that determination is clearly erroneous, the agency will not question it. In directing the light from the lamp toward the vehicle side, we would caution against placement of the lamp so that the beam falls upon any intermediate side marker lamp and reflector (required on vehicles whose overall length is 30 feet or greater).

The fact that original auxiliary lighting equipment may be acceptable under S5.1.3 does not preempt a state from prohibiting it under its own lighting regulations. We are unable to advise you on state laws, and suggest that you contact the Department of Motor Vehicles in those states where you anticipate marketing Graphiclite.

If you have any further questions, please telephone Taylor Vinson (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:108

d:12/11/96

ID: 12669.ztv

The Honorable Bill Baker
U.S. House of Representatives
1801 N. California Boulevard
Suite 103
Walnut Creek, CA 94956

Dear Mr. Baker:

I am replying to your letter of October 22, 1996, addressed to Marilynne Jacobs, Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, on behalf of your constituent, Duane Doyle of San Leandro. You have asked for our views on his letter to you of October 17, 1996, a copy of which you enclosed.

Mr. Doyle bought a 1996 Rover Mini Cooper in Switzerland, and when he attempted to import it, he was informed by the U.S. Customs Service at the Port of Oakland that the vehicle would have to be brought into compliance with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards which this agency (NHTSA) administers, as well as Federal emissions requirements that are administered by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Doyle offered to retrofit the car with a roll bar and racing safety harness and was told by this agency that this was insufficient to fulfil the requirements of this agency. He then offered to store the car on his property and not drive it on the public roads, and was informed that this, also, was not acceptable. He now seeks to import it under 49 U.S.C. 30112(b), which he interprets as follows: "the prohibitions on importing noncomplying motor vehicles and equipment do not apply to a person that had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care that a motor vehicle did not comply with applicable motor vehicle safety standards." The tone of his letter indicates that he feels he is being singled out unfairly by NHTSA.

Although the legal background may have been discussed in other correspondence between Mr. Doyle and this agency, this is the first time that the Office of Chief Counsel has been afforded an opportunity to discuss this matter. There are several provisions of law applicable to Mr. Doyle's situation. First, there has been a prohibition in effect for almost 29 years, since January 1, 1968 (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A), recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30112(a)), against importing motor vehicles into the United States unless they conform, or are brought into conformance, with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Furthermore, under the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988 (codified as 49 U.S.C. 30141 et seq.), since January 31, 1990, for almost 7 years it has not been possible to import a noncomplying motor vehicle unless this agency has determined that the vehicle is capable of being converted to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. The agency has not made such a determination with respect to the 1996 Rover Mini Cooper.

Under 49 U.S.C. 30142, Mr. Doyle may import the Mini Cooper after demonstrating that he has a contract with a "registered importer" to bring the Mini Cooper into full compliance with the Federal safety standards, and that the agency has made a determination under section 30141(a)(1) (B) that "the safety features of the vehicle comply with or are capable of being altered to comply with those standards based on destructive test information or other evidence [NHTSA] decides is adequate." NHTSA makes the determination after the public has commented upon an application filed by the "registered importer", which is an entity that NHTSA has recognized as capable of performing standards compliance work. If Mr. Doyle is interested in pursuing this avenue of approach, the Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will provide him, upon his request, with a list of "registered importers" in his area. This is the procedure that must be followed by persons seeking permanent importation of vehicles for their own use. The fact that the Mini meets the safety standards of other countries is an argument that may be made in the application.

The modifications which Mr. Doyle offered to make, while addressing some aspects of occupant protection, were insufficient to demonstrate that the Mini would comply afterwards with all the safety standards that apply to it. We note also Mr. Doyle's offer to restrict the Mini's use to private property. The problem with this offer is that it is not binding on a subsequent purchaser of the car, and we have no authority to require a person other than the importer to bring a car into compliance. Thus, an importer must bring into compliance a motor vehicle that was originally manufactured for on-road use even if (s)he intends to use it on private property.

As noted above, Mr. Doyle seeks an exemption based upon his interpretation of Section. 30112(b). Section 30112(a) contains the basic prohibition against, among other things, importing a motor vehicle unless it complies with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and bears the manufacturer's certification of compliance. Section 30112(b) sets forth nine circumstances in which section 30112(a) does not apply, that is to say, under which a violation will be considered not to have occurred (and for which a civil penalty may not be imposed). One of these exceptions is if a person can establish "that the person had no reason to know, despite exercising reasonable care, that a motor vehicle . . . does not comply with applicable [U.S. Federal] motor vehicle safety standards. . . ."

Mr. Doyle has not violated Section 30112(a). He has not completed importation of the Mini into the United States; indeed, he was prevented from doing so by the U.S. Customs Service because it did not comply with the standards. Since he has not imported a noncomplying vehicle, he has not violated Section 30112(a) and therefore Section 30112(b)(2) does not apply. He cannot now import the Mini using Section 30112(b)(2) as a defense because he now knows that the Mini fails to comply. The exception that applies to Mr. Doyle is that set out by Section 30112(b)(5) -- "a motor vehicle imported for personal use by an individual who receives an exemption under section 30142 of this title", that is, importation of the Mini through the auspices of a "registered importer" who will conform the vehicle.

Taylor Vinson of this Office will be pleased to answer such further questions as may occur (202-366-5263).

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:591

d:11/15/96

ID: 12730a.jeg

Mr. Chet K. Wilson
Executive Consultant
AEI Consulting
38345 Ten Mile Road
Suite 230
Farmington Hills, MI 48335

Dear Mr. Wilson:

This responds to your letter concerning regulations issued under the American Automobile Labeling Act. I apologize for the delay in our response. You ask about the following factual situation:

An outside supplier, in preparing a response to a request from an unrelated motor vehicle manufacturer, pursuant to 49 CFR 583.10, determined the following percentages of foreign and domestic content contained in the equipment (which is not an engine or transmission) supplied directly to the manufacturer:

You ask three questions under these facts, which are addressed below.

Question 1. Because the combined U.S./Canadian content is less than 70% in the equipment, the supplier must determine and report the country of origin. In determining the country of origin, are the Canadian and U.S. content percentages to be combined or treated separately?

The Canadian and U.S. content percentages are combined. Section 583.10(a)(5) specifies that, for equipment which has less than 70 percent of its value added in the United States and Canada, an outside supplier is to provide "the country of origin of the equipment, determined under 583.7(c)." Section 583.7(c) specifies that the U.S. and Canada are treated together in making this determination.

Question 2. If Canadian and U.S. are to be combined, how is the supplier to report the country of origin?

The supplier should specify the country of origin as U.S./Canada, but must do so in a manner that makes it clear this determination is being made pursuant to 583.10(a)(5), and not 583.10(a)(4). The country of origin would not be "U.S./Canada" under the latter section because 70 percent of more of its value was not added in the U.S. and/or Canada.

Question 3. Does the supplier have to report the percentage of content or just the name of the country of origin?

Section 583.10(a)(5) only requires the supplier to report the name of the country of origin.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:583
d.7/25/97

ID: 12975-1.pja

Dana Schuman
1443 Revelation Road
Meadowbrook, PA 19046

e-mail: CloonCraze@aol.com

Via e-mail and mail

Dear Dana Schuman:

This responds to your October 27, 1996 e-mail to President Clinton enquiring about where you could get information about writing a bill to require seat belts on school buses. Your inquiry was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because this agency is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses.

Before referring you to sources of information on school bus seat belt legislation, I will briefly review this agency's existing belt installation requirements for school buses and the rationale behind them. Small school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating under 10,000 pounds, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions. For larger school buses, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver. Note that NHTSA regulates only belt installation. Belt use regulation is left to the States.

We have not required large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that these buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises in part from the fact that, in crashes with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than those experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated seating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle. Since the size and weight of small school buses are closer to those of passenger cars and trucks, the agency believes seat belts in those vehicles are necessary to provide occupant protection.

Larger school buses have a protection system so that children are protected without the need to buckle-up. Our regulations require large school buses to use a concept called "compartmentalization," which protects occupants by a protective envelope consisting of strong, closely-spaced seats that have energy-absorbing seat backs. The effectiveness of compartmentalization has been confirmed in studies by the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

Although large school buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions from requiring safety belts on their own large buses. If you are considering drafting such legislation, we urge you to include provisions designed to promote proper belt use. The NAS report states that if seat belts are to be beneficial, "states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly."

Since no Federal legislation requiring seat belts on school buses has been introduced, the best sources of information are in the two States that have such requirements, New York and New Jersey. We suggest you contact one of the following people:

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

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:12/4/96

ID: 13104.jeg

S. G. Hong
V-Car Safety Team
Daewoo Motor Co., Ltd.
KOREA
FAX: 82-32-520-2837

Dear Sir or Madam:

This responds to your faxed letter asking about Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. I apologize for the delay in our response.

You noted that passenger cars are required to meet Standard No. 208's occupant injury criteria using the air bag only, and also using the air bag plus the manual seat belt. You asked whether passenger cars are also required to meet the standard's injury criteria using the manual seat belt only. The answer to this question is no.

You also cited the possibility of people being killed in a crash in which the air bag does not deploy, and where the passenger car does not meet Standard No. 208's occupant injury criteria using the manual seat belt only. You asked who would be "responsible" for the deaths.

I note that liability issues are a matter of State law rather than Federal law. We therefore cannot provide an opinion concerning this question.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel
ref:208
d.6/16/97