ID: 1982-3.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/01/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Cosco -- Robert C. Craig, Quality Control Manager

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

This responds to your letter of August 13, 1982, concerning the application of the belt buckle requirements of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, to child restraints meeting Standard No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. As explained in the enclosed letters of interpretation of May 12, 1981, and May 21, 1981, the only requirements of Standard No. 209 that apply to child restraint belt buckles are the corrosion resistance requirement of S4.3(a) and the temperature resistance requirement of S4.3(b). The buckle release requirements of S4.3(d) and the buckle latch requirements of S4.3(g) do not apply to child restraints.

Because of reports of problems relating to difficulty in operating child restraint buckles, the agency is considering issuance of a proposal to apply the requirements of S4.3(d)(2) and S4.3(g) to child restraint system belt buckles. Any such proposal would be published in the Federal Register to provide all interested parties with notice and opportunity to comment.

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

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

August 13, 1982

Mr. Steve Oesch Office of Chief Counsel National Highway Safety Administration 400 7th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Mr. Oesch:

Cosco/Peterson has received notice from Richard Jasinski, Contract Technical Manager, that we had problems on three tests on the 78 Safe-T-Seat.

One was the corrosion resistance. On this portion we agree about the standard.

The other two we do not agree, and we would like for you to review and give us your judgment. One was the size of the push button, that it has to be greater in size than 0.7 sq. in. (Ref: Standard 209 S4.3d). The second was the engagement force of no more than 5 lbs. (Ref: Standard 209 S4.3g).

We feel that both of these refer to a Type 1 or Type 2 automo-bile belt and not to a child restraint system. Our reference is F.R. Vol 44 No. 241 December 13, 1979, N.H.T.S.A. 49 CFR, Part 571, Docket No. 749, Notice 6, page 72135, last paragraph: "Base on its review ... adopt this approach".

We have been tested many times by Cal-Span and the University of Michigan, and this was never a question on size or engagement.

We need your immediate attention to this. If we have made the wrong interpretation of the standard we want to rectify it immediately.

Sincerely,

Robert C. Craig Quality Control Manager

RCC:ch

c.c. Richard Jasinski Roy Schwartzkopf Don Moore

ID: 1982-3.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Kastar Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Harry Epstein Kastar, Inc. Station Road at Sunrise Highway Bellport, New York 11713

Dear Mr. Epstein:

This responds to your letter of October 1, 1982 (and letter of August 31, 1982) requesting information concerning the Federal requirements applicable to auxiliary wind deflectors for passenger car doors. Your letter states that Mr. Kevin Cavey of this agency indicated that plastic wind deflectors do "not have to meet any government regulations."

We apologize, but the information given to you by Mr.Cavey was incorrect. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended 1974 (the Act), authorizes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards which are applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. The wind deflectors you plan to manufacture are pieces of motor vehicle equipment, and they are subject to Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (copy enclosed).

Incorporating by reference "ANS Z26," the American National Standard's Safety Code for Glazing Materials, Safety Standard No. 205 specifies performance requirements for various types of glazing and also the locations in vehicles in which each type of glazing may be used. Under the requirements of this standard, an auxiliary wind deflector to be used on a passenger vehicle at levels requisite for driving ability may be manufactured out of either Item 1, Item 2, Item 4, Item 10, or Item 11 glazing materials, depending upon its proposed location on the vehicle (the various types of glazing are designated as "Items" in the standard). The acrylic plastic material you propose to use is probably an Item 4 glazing, which may be used as a wind deflector placed on the side window of a vehicle. An AS-4 glazing material must meet Test No. 2, "Luminous Transmittance," which requires that the material "show regular (parallel) luminous transmittance of not less than 70 percent irradiation." You will have to make the determination whether your material in fact qualifies as an Item 4 material, or any of the other Item numbers mentioned above.

Safety Standard No. 205 also sets forth specific certification and marking requirements. The requirements for prime glazing material manufacturers (those who fabricate, laminate, or temper the glazing material) are set out in paragraphs S6.1-S6.3. While not explicitly stated in your letter, it appears that you do not manufacture the glazing to be used in your deflector, but instead purchase it from a prime glazing manufacturer and then cut it yourself. If this assumption is correct, then the certification and marking requirements applicable to you are set out in Paragraph S6.4 and S6.5. By reference to section 6 of ANS Z26, you are required under this paragraph to mark any section of glazing that you cut with the same words, designations, characters, and numerals as the piece of glazing from which it was taken. This means that you would stamp your product with markings identical to those found on the acrylic sheets you purchased. Each item must also be certified pursuant to Section 114 of the Act. Section 114 provides that an item of motor vehicle equipment may be certified by means of a label or tag on the item or on the outside of a container in which the equipment is delivered. The label or tag must state that the item of motor vehicle equipment complies with all applicable motor vehicle safety standards, which in this case would be Safety Standard No. 205.

Under Section 108(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1) of the Act, new motor vehicle equipment such as wind deflectors must comply with applicable safety standards prior to its first purchase by someone for purposes other than resale. The manufacture or installation of a wind deflector that does not conform to the standard, or the installation in a new vehicle in a location that is not provided for in Standard No. 205, would be a violation of Section 108(a)(1)(A). Under Section 109, anyone who violates Section 108(a)(1)(A) is subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation.

Manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment also have responsibilities under the Act regarding safety defects. Under Section 151 et. seq., such manufacturers must notify purchasers about safety-related defects and remedy such defects free of charge. Again, 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.

We hope you find this information helpful. Please contact Hugh Oates of this office if you have any more questions. (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.19

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/15/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Thatcher Unified Schools

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Max Peck Superintendent Thatcher Unified Schools District No. 4 P.O. Box 610 Thatcher, Arizona 85552

Dear Mr. Peck:

This is in response to your letter of September 30, 1982, enclosing a "petition for exemption...on behalf of Capps and Lancaster Service Center". The petition concerns a single motor vehicle consisting of the body of a 1974 Dodge school bus which has been removed from its original chassis and attached to a new 1981 International Harvester chassis.

This agency does not regulate the use of motor vehicles. That is a matter for State governments. We do enforce the Federal motor vehicle safety standards and grant exemptions as appropriate consistent with our authority.

I regret that the exemption process is not available in your case. Part 555 is intended to cover the future vehicle production of bona fide motor vehicle manufacturers, and not a single conversion, performed in the past, by what appears to be a service garage. Under our regulations, the combination of an old body upon a new chassis results in a new motor vehicle required to meet the motor vehicle safety standards in effect when the chassis was manufactured. Compliance is especially important in this instance because of all the school bus safety standards that have become effective since the bus body was manufactured in 1974, and which affect its structure and that of its seats.

This means that Capps and Lancaster are technically in violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, for which a penalty of up to $1000 may be imposed. We do not intend to pursue this, however, unless other violations come to our attention. However, our Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance will be contacting Capps and Lancaster to make them aware of their responsibilities in order to prevent further violations by that company.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

September 30, 1982

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590

Gentlemen:

Find enclosed the petition for exemption as executed by Mr. James Capps and Mr. Bill Lancaster on behalf of Capps and Lancaster Service Center. As you can see from the documentation accompanying their petition, they performed extensive labor in the removal and reattachment of the Superior Coach to the new International Harvester chasis. Their efforts and our ability to utilize the Superior Coach have resulted in a substantial economic benefit to the Thatcher Unified School District and therefore to its taxpayers while at the same time providing totally safe and reliable school bus transportation for the district.

Should you have any questions regarding the petition as submitted by Capps and Lancaster, or if we can provide any additional information on behalf of the District, please let us know.

Respectfully,

THATCHER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 4

Max Peck, Superintendent

MP/mb

Enclosures

October 1, 1982 Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 Gentlemen:

In accordance with Title 49, U.S.C. 555, we herewith make application for temporary exemption from motor vehicle safety standards on behalf of Thatcher Unified School District No. 4, Graham County, Arizona. This petition is based upon the substantial economic hardship which the district would incur if it were not allowed to place into service the 1974 Superior Coach which has been reinstated upon a 1982 International Harvester chasis.

We have attached for your review the following: (1) Original bid dated December 18, 1973, for the Superior body mounted upon the original 1974 Dodge chasis; (2) Specification Sheet from Superior Coach Sales and Service, re: the coach which has now been installed upon the 1982 International Harvester chasis; (3) Minutes of school board meeting authorizing the purchase of the 1974 Dodge bus and chasis; (4) Notice of bid for chasis and specification therefore, re: 1981 or comparable International Harvester chasis; (5) Certificate of title for a 1982 International Harvester chasis and Superior Coach as modified; (6) Copy of warranty, re: International Harvester chasis; (7) Photocopy of check drawn upon Graham County and payable to Capps and Lancaster for parts and materials incurred in the modification and reassembly of the International Harvester chasis and Superior coach.

As you can see from the attached data, the Thatcher Unified School District has already incurred significant expense so as to provide safety and reasonable transportation for its students and at the same time so as to utilize the Superior Coach which was in totally serviceable condition. As work undertaken by us in the detachment of the old chasis and the installation of the new was done in a competent and workman manner and the vehicle was fully tested and evaluated by us prior to its being released to the school district. We believe the granting of this extention for a three year period would would be in the public interest and consistant with the objectives of the National traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in that the utilization of the Superior Coach which has been competently reinstated upon the new chasis would give the Thatcher Unified School District the benefit of a new and totally safe school bus while at the same time resulting in substantial economic benefit to the tax payers of the district. Therefore, it is requested that you act favorably upon this request and grant a three year exemption for this vehicle.

Respectfully submitted this 1st day of October, 1982.

James Capps Bill Lancaster

ID: 1982-3.2

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 08/20/82

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; SIGNATURE BY STEPHEN P. WOOD

TO: Zimmer Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Thank you for your letter of August 6, 1982, to the Administrator asking whether there is "any blanket waiver of standards solely based on a small production of vehicles."

You are correct that no such waiver exists. Even a single automobile manufactured for use on the public roads must meet all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards unless exempted by the Administrator under the provisions of Part 555. A manufacturer whose total motor vehicle production in the year preceding filing of his petition does not exceed 10,000 units is eligible to apply for an exemption of up to three years on a hardship basis. Any manufacturer of motor vehicles may apply for an exemption of up to two years on the three remaining bases that you mention but the exemption extends only to a maximum of 2500 vehicles in any 12-month period that the exemption is in effect.

Under the original exemption authority, in effect from 1968 to 1971, exemptions were available on a hardship basis and the threshold of eligibility was 500 units.

SINCERELY,

ZIMMER CORPORATION

August 6, 1982

Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Gentlemen:

From time to time I am confronted with statements to the effect that if a vehicle manufacturer produces not more than "X" quantity of vehicles, such vehicles are not required to be in compliance with the FMVSS. The quantity of vehicles referenced varies from 250 to 2000 depending on the source of the statement.

I am aware of the provisions of Part 555 covering temporary exemption from the standards under special conditions of economic hardship, development of new vehicle safety and low-emission engine features, and equivalent vehicle safety. But I am not aware of any blanket waiver of standards solely based on a small production of vehicles.

Please advise.

R. H. Zelinske Vice President Corporate Engineering

ID: 1982-3.20

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/17/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Stephen P. Wood; NHTSA

TO: Middlekauff Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letters of September 27 and October 7, 1982, concerning your wish for a temporary exemption from Standard No. 301.

In our letter of August 12, 1982, we informed you that the statement which 49 CFR Part 568 requires an incomplete vehicle manufacturer to furnish with the vehicle affords a basis for certification without the necessity of testing. We asked you which of the statements had been provided you. Your subsequent correspondence with us does not answer this question. You refer to a print furnished you by AM General Corporation after August 12 which, with your engineering studies, leads you to believe that you may comply, but the print is extraneous to the Part 568 statement.

Therefore, we would still like to know whether AM General has provided you with a statement of specific conditions of final manufacture under which the completed vehicle will conform with Standard No. 301, or, alternatively, with a statement that the vehicle will conform if no alterations are made in certain specified components of the incomplete vehicle. Perhaps you could send us a copy of that portion of the Part 568 statement pertaining to Standard No. 301.

We shall consider your petition further when we have this information.

Sincerely,

October 7, 1982

Frank Berndt -- Chief Counsel, U.S. Dept. of Transporation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm.

DEAR MR. BERNDT:

This is in reference to our letter to you of September 27, 1982 regarding our petition for a temporary exemption from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard #301.

In paragraph two of our letter, we stated that "it was the feeling of AM General that they would prefer to certify the completed vehicles themselves rather than have us certify the vehicles as the final manufacturer". This was an error. We have since been advised that they would still require us to certify the vehicles as final manufacturer in compliance with Public Law 89-563. It is their belief, however, that the possession of the temporary exemption to Standard #301, referred to in our letters, would still be benefical in addition to our certification of compliance with all remaining Standards.

In view of the above, once again, we respectfully request that you issue the temporary exemption to Standard #301 for all the reasons outlined in our previous letters.

Thanking you for your consideration,

Very respectfully yours, MIDDLEKAUFF, INC.; F. E. Bettridge -- Board Chairman

ID: 1982-3.21

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/21/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Anonymous (Confidential)

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Dear

This is in reply to your letter of October 15, 1982, asking for an interpretation of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123, Motorcycle Controls and Displays. You have asked whether the standard permits three-wheeled motorcycles to be equipped with a reverse gear.

Standard No. 123 applies only to motorcycles with handlebars, which are generally those machines with two wheels. As the standard is silent with respect to reverse gears, the agency considers that a manufacturer of a three-wheeled motorcycle with handlebars may provide and locate a reverse gear change mechanism wherever he deems appropriate.

This office can offer no comments on three-wheeled motorcycle safety in general. However, I suggest that you contact NHTSA's Office of Research and Development. Several years ago it conducted a study of three-wheeled vehicles, and as I recall, a configuration with two wheels in front and one behind was found to offer greater stability than the converse.

We shall delete your name and that of your company from the publicly available copies of this letter, in accordance with your wish for confidentiality.

Sincerely,

Original Signed By Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

ID: 1982-3.22

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1982

FROM: LINDA ANDERSON

TO: STEVEN OESCH-NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO MARCH 18, 1983 LETTER FROM BERNDT TO ANDERSON

TEXT: We have had two telephone conversations reviewing the regulations regarding child restraint seats as it pertains to the construction and testing of a play tray.

I have shared information with my partner, Laura Warren, and we have, of course, more questions in pursuing our goal of designing a safe play table for children secured in automobile restraint seats:

1. You have helpfully shared information regarding the individual from Strolee who pursued the same goal. What we are now questioning is whether Strolee, Inc., or Mr. Halper, did in fact have their play tray tested? Or did your letter to Mr. Halper end communication between Strolee and N.H.T.S.A.?

2. Would you have any other details considered public domain which might help us locate a patent on the Strolee tray?

3. One of our plans for a play tray would involve using velcro fasteners to be secured around the restraint belts covering the child's torso. Therefore, the restraint belts would have to be properly in place on the child before the play table could be fastened to it. Do you see any problem with this design in terms of the regulations, i.e., testing of the play tray? (We are, of course, assuming your discretion in investigating any of the above, since we are protecting our visionary unpatented plans while aiming at designing a safe product.)

4. Do the regulations ever change and what is the process? In my last meeting with my partner, we were looking at several restraint seats and noticed the label specifications glued to the seat explaining proper use of the seat.

Let's assume that a play tray was designed and sold by a source, such as ourselves, obviously unconnected with the large manufacturers of automobile restraint seats. A consumer would recognize that this product purchased separately from the seat was not an "armrest" or "shield" item as those sold by the seat manufacturer for use with the seat. In addition a label properly bonded to the play table could specify that the car seat restraint belts must function as the directions on the car seat itself specify before and during use of the play tray. Wouldn't we then be supporting the aim and goal of the regulations i.e., the proper use of car restraint seats? And in that case the present Regulation S 5.2.2.2., concerning the testing of the play tray or "contractible surface", would be unduly restrictive.

If a suitable regulation or variation applied to our proposed play tray, and similiar non-restraint accessory items, we might then produce a product which would support and enhance the use of the child restraint seat.

I'll be looking forward to your reply and I am grateful for your help so far. I would appreciate having a copy of any written reply sent to Laura Warren at the following address: 17 Byington Place Norwalk, CT C6850

The standards we discussed in our last phone conversation just arrived. Thank you very much.

ID: 1982-3.23

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/22/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Manson & Barish, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

November 22, 1982 NOA-30

Mr. Mel Weinstein, President Manson & Barish, Inc. 171 Fourth Avenue Bayshore, New York 11706

Dear Mr. Weinstein:

This responds to your recent letter to Mr. Kratzke of my staff requesting that your firm, which imports tires, be assigned to retreader's identification mark under the provisions of 49 CFR Part 574. As I understand it, you plan to import tires retreaded in Japan by six or seven different retreaders, and would like to put your own identification mark on all these tires.

Retreader identification marks are assigned only to retreaders, and not to importers. Therefore, I cannot take the action you have requested. I have enclosed the materials necessary to permit the Japanese retreaders to export their tires into this country, which would achieve the same results you sought.

Chapter 49 CFR 574.5 (copy enclosed) specifies that each retreader shall mold or brand into the sidewall of each retreaded tire it produces for sale in the United States, certain information including the the retreater's identification mark. Part 574.6 specifies that the retreader, not the importer, should apply to this agency to obtain the identification mark. The identification mark is used by the agency as a device to readily identify the manufacturer or retreader of a tire. Thus, S 574.6(b) requires that the manufacturer or retreader identify each of its plants in its application for the identification mark. A separate identification mark is assigned to each plant. It would not serve this intended purpose for the agency to assign an identification mark to an importer, such as yourself, which imports from six different retreaders.

Although you as an importer may not receive an identification mark, each of the Japanese retreaders may apply individually for such a mark. To facilitate any applications by those retreaders, I have enclosed six copies of the form required to receive an identification mark.

In addition to the identification mark required on each tire, the only other requirement with which the Japanese retreaders must comply before offering tires for sale in the U.S. is to designate an agent for service of process. The person or corporation designated as an agent must be a permanent resident of the U.S., as set forth in 49 CFR Part 551 (copy enclosed). Additionally, 49 CFR 551.45 requires that the designation must be in writing and dated with a signature in ink, and must be binding upon the retreader under the laws of Japan. When completed, these designations should be submitted to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Once the agency has received this designation of agent from a retreader and that retreader has been assigned an identification mark, that retreader's tires may be offered for sale in the U.S. You, of course, could be the retreaders' designated agent.

Should you need any further information or assistance, please contact Mr. Stephen Kratzke of my staff at (202) 426-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

Enclosures

September 28, 1982

OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA Room 5219 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

Attn: Mr. Steve Kratzke

Dear Mr. Kratzke,

As per our telephone conversation of September 24, 1982, the following is a request to be assigned a D.O.T. identification number, so that our firm can be qualified to import and distribute retreaded foreign tires.

To clarify our position and thoughts, please be advised that we import and export used tires and casing for retreading. We are currently interested in importing Japanese retreaded tires. We understand that the purpose of the D.O.T. identification number is to be able to identify the retreader in case of a recall, as well as a method of communication with the users of such tires.

It is our belief that for the purposes intended it would be beneficial for our company to be assigned the identification number rather than the retreader for the following reasons.

In the event of a recall, we will be able to be notified more readily than a foreign retreader.

It is in our best interest to be abreast of any current laws regarding D.O.T. standards and we are not sure that the same concern is available from a foreign source.

Considering that there is no fedaral standard for truck tire retreading at this point, we believe that it would make more sense to issue our company the D.O.T. identification number. Our company will then negotiate overseas in order to insure the standards that are used in the retreading of the truck tires.

As a member of NTDRA and ARA, it behooves our company to be in a position to oversee the quality of the retreading process and to have only those tires retreaded that would meet basic safety standards imported into the United States.

If we can be of any assistance to you in expediting a decision, please call on us.

We await your reply,

Sincerely yours,

Mel Weinstein, Pres.

MW:ms 11/22/82

ID: 1982-3.24

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/23/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 23 1982 NOA-30

Mr. F. Michael Petler Head, Administration Government Relations Department Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd. P.O. Box 1100 Brea, California 92621

Dear Mr. Petler:

This responds to your October 27, 1982, letter asking for permission to place the certification labels for certain motorcycles produced by Suzuki Motor Co. in locations not previously permitted by Part 567, Certification.

You request alternative locations, because some motorcycles are equipped with fairings as standard equipment. These fairings would obscure the certification labels if the labels were to be installed in their required location. You propose, as an alternative, the installation of the labels on the down tubes in front of the engine on either the right or left side. In consideration of the problems of installing the certification labels in their normal positions on vehicles equipped with fairings and since the agency desires that these labels be easily readable, we grant your request to install your labels in these limited instances in the alternative locations that you suggested.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

October 27, 1982

Raymond A. Peck, Jr.

Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590

Re: Certification Label Placement

Dear Mr. Peck:

We have been asked by our parent company to request approval that would give Suzuki the option of affixing the certification label specified in 49 CFR 567.4(e) at a location on the motorcycle other than in the area of the intersection of the steering post with the handlebars for certain models, at the time of manufacture.

The reason for this request is that on motorcycles sold with a fairing as standard equipment it would not be possible to read the certification label if it were to be affixed in the usual location on the steering post.

On two previous occasions we have written for permission to affix this label to other areas of the motorycle frame in lieu of the location specified under Part 567.4(e), and in both instances our request was approved.

For the GS1100ES and for other fairing equipped models that will be produced in the near future, Suzuki wishes to be given the option of being able to affix the label to the down tube in front of the engine on either the right or left side of the motorcycle. The general location for the right side is shown on the enclosed drawing.

We would appreciate your consideration of our request at the earliest possible date so that production planning can proceed for the GS1100ES and other models that will be equipped with a fairing as standard equipment.

Sincerely,

SUZUKI MOTOR CO., LTD.

F. Michael Petler Head, Administration Government Relations Department

FMP:kp

Enclosure (1)

SUZUKI MOTORS CO., LTD. October 26, 1982

*Insert Diagram Here

ID: 1982-3.25

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/26/82

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Fowler-Finch, Inc

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

NOV 26 1982

NOA-30

Ms. Joann Stewart Account Representative Fowler-Finch, Inc. P.O. 63 New Lebanon Center, N.Y. 12126

Dear Ms. Stewart:

This responds to your recent letter asking whether the automatic belt systems in 1979 and 1980-model Volkswagens qualify as a "passive restraint system" under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. You need this information to determine if one of your insureds can obtain the discount your company offers for automobiles equipped with passive restraints.

The answer to your question is yes. The Volkswagen automatic belt system qualifies as a passive restraint. The agency has stated that a "passive restraint" is a system that requires no action by vehicle occupants in order to obtain protection. The Volkswagen passive belt automatically surrounds the vehicle occupant without any action on the occupant's part other than closing the vehicle door (i.e., the occupant does not have to touch the belt system). Therefore, the Volkswagen belts you mentioned in your letter are passive restraints, and whether the systems are offered as standard or optional equipment is irrelevant.

I hope this answers all your questions. If you require any further information, please contact Hugh Oates of my staff (202-426-2992).

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel October 20, 1982

Department of Transportation 400 7th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

ATTN: STEPHEN WOOD, ESQ.

Dear Mr. Wood:

I am an Account Representative for the Fowler-Finch Ins. Agency. One of my insureds has recently inquired about the discount available for automobiles equipped with a "Passive Restraint System". In checking with the insuring company they do not have a clear cut definition or description of what this system is, but only that it must meet the Published Federal Safety Standards. I have contacted the automobile dealer whom the insured has purchased both of his vehicles from and they suggested that I write to Customer Assistance, Volkswagen of America, Inc. of Englewood Cliffs, NJ. I have attached a copy of their return correspondence.

Now I am turning to you for the information which I need. In order to be able to offer this insured the credit for the Passive Restraint System the insuring company is requesting some form of written confirmation that this insured's vehicles Passive Restraint System does or does not meet these mandatory standards.

The vehicles which I am referring to are:

1. 1980 Volkswagen 2 door custom hatchback (v.i.n. # 17A0793616) 2. 1979 Volkswagen 4 door Deluxe hatchback (v.i.n. # 1793850401)

On the 1979 model, the Passive Restraint System was a standard feature; however on the 1980 model the insured requested it as an optional feature and was charged for it.

Would you please help me to determine if these are recognized as meeting the Published Federal Safety Standards? I have enclosed a self-addressed envelope for your convenience and anxiously await your prompt response.

Thank you very much for your help and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Account Representative Enclosure (1)

October 4, 1982

Ms. Stewart Fowler-Finch, Inc. P.O. Box 63 New Lebanon Center, NY 12126

Re: Your letter of September 22, 1982

Dear Ms. Stewart:

In reply to your letter I am enclosing an abstract of a computer printout which is annotated to indicate which codes show that the subject vehicles were equipped with the Volkswagen Passive Seat Belt System.

I am enclosing a copy of Std 208 taken from the CFR. This standard indicates the criteria which a passive belt system must meet to show conformance. Sections particularly applicable have been highlighted.

The government agency which establishes the standards and is responsible for enforcement is the proper party to contact with regard to any system meeting the standard. As I stated on the telephone, the address is:

Department of Transportation 400, 7th Street S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Attn. Stephen Wood, Esq.

Standard 208 is a performance standard in that certain testing criteria must be met but specific hardware to meet this criteria is not specified. The Volkswagen Passive Belt System consists of a belt attached between a specific seat anchorage and the door and a knee bar installed in a specific vehicle model. the Volkswagen Rabbit. It is designed to allow entrance and exit from the vehicle without detachment of any part of the system. I have enclosed a portion of the owners manual which describes the operation of the system.

Volkswagen has produced vehicles with the Automatic Belt System since 1975. I trust that this may help answer your questions.

Sincerely,

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC.

G. Salser Engineer Technical Services

GS/v. No. Encl.