ID: nht92-6.13

DATE: June 9, 1992

FROM: Jim Sasser -- United States Senator

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/7/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Jim Sasser (A39; Part 571.3); Also attached to letter dated 5/29/92 from Jerry R. Curry to John J. Duncan, Jr.

TEXT:

I have been contacted by several Tennesseans regarding their concern about a federal law governing the use of vehicles with a capacity for eleven or more individuals. I have enclosed a sample letter for your reference.

Many schools in Tennessee formerly used passenger vans to transport athletic teams and have been forced to discontinue use of the vans due to this law. The elimination of the van service has placed a tremendous financial burden on these schools and forced some to eliminate some of their minor sports programs.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your giving careful consideration to this matter and providing me with a report which addresses whose responsibility it is to meet the federal safety standards. Does the individual who sells the van have responsibility or does the school which purchased the vehicle? Moreover, I would further appreciate the report addressing the question of the liability involved in the event of an accident.

Thank you for your courtesy and assistance.

Attachment

Letter dated 5/29/92 from Robert High, Athletic Director, Brainerd High School, Chattanooga, Tennessee to Jim Sasser. Text of letter:

Mr. Sasser:

Recently there has been much concern in regards to recent memos from Mr. Ernest Farmer, Director of Pupil Transportation, Tennessee Department of Education. The memo I have reference to concerns a law that dates back to 1970's. This memo is a federal law pertaining to the use of vehicles with a capacity of eleven or more passengers.

Many schools throughout the state have used both 12 and 15 passenger vans to transport their athletic teams to and from athletic events. There are several systems that have been required to stop using their vans for transportation in athletics due to that law. This situation has and could create a tremendous financial burden on schools, a problem we already have due to budget cuts.

If vans are eliminated from schools, I foresee several problems. Several schools would have to eliminate most of their minor sports simply because of the cost for renting buses on a daily basis. Also, the availability of buses at the time of day you need them.

We are desperately asking for your help in seeing that this law is amended or changed in order to permit the use of these vehicles. I personally don't understand the rationale in allowing a van to transport 10 passengers, but not 11, 12 or 15.

Here at Brainerd, we field 12 athletic teams and 2 squads of cheerleaders. We only have 2 revenue producing sports with those being football and basketball. I am hopeful that we will not have to result to cutting out minor sports because of a transportation cost problem.

We appreciate your support in this matter.

ID: nht92-6.14

DATE: June 8, 1992

FROM: Michael F. Hecker -- Micho Industries

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: M. Dunn; R. Rogers

TITLE: Re: R-BAR Passenger Restraint System

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/14/92 from Paul J. Rice to Michael F. Hecker (A39; Std. 222)

TEXT:

I wish to thank you for your response to my letter of March 31, 1992.

We understand that the R-BAR, once installed on the seatback, becomes part of the seatback and therefore is subject to the test requirements of F.M.V.S.S. #222. Further, in determining the proper test procedures for this device, in accordance with the stated regulations (CFR 49 571.222 S6.4.) and including Laboratory Procedures #TP-222-01 (re: B. Pretest Procedure, step #6), we understand that since the R-BAR is part of the seatback, and adjustable, that the testing procedures are to be done in its most upright position.

Please advise us if this is a proper interpretation of this (S6.4) regulation.

Once again, thank you in advance for consideration in this matter.

ID: nht92-6.15

DATE: June 5, 1992

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Robert S. McLean, Esq. -- King & Spalding

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 3/9/92 from Robert S. McLean to Paul J. Rice

TEXT:

This responds to your request for additional information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts. In response to your March 9, 1992 letters, I sent you a March 30, 1992 letter explaining how our requirements apply to automatic belts. Specifically, I explained that an automatic shoulder belt is not a Type 2a belt, as defined in Standard No. 209, and that automatic belts are not required to include any warnings required for Type 2a belts. I noted that all the requirements applicable to automatic belts are set forth in S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208.

On May 19, 1992, you sent a FAX to Steve Kratzke of this office asking for a further clarification of the requirements applicable to automatic belts. You followed the FAX up with a telephone call on May 27, 1992, during which you explained that you were seeking an opinion from me with respect to an interpretation that is being asserted in litigation in which you are involved. The issue involves the crash protection requirements in Standard No. 208. S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208 gives vehicle manufacturers a choice of three options for providing occupant crash protection and sets forth specific belt installation requirements for each option. However, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 contains an important proviso. This section provides that an automatic seat belt assembly may be used to meet the crash protection requirements of any option set forth in S4.1.2 and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required by that option.

You explained that another party in your litigation is asserting that an automatic belt, which consists solely of a shoulder belt, could not be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of any option in S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. This is so because, according to this argument, an automatic belt which consists solely of a shoulder belt is not a "seat belt assembly." The reason it is asserted that a shoulder belt alone cannot be a "seat belt assembly" is that S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 requires that "a seat belt assembly shall provide pelvic restraint." Since an automatic belt that consists solely of a shoulder belt does not provide pelvic restraint, this argument concludes that automatic belts that do not provide pelvic restraint must not be "seat belt assemblies" within the meaning of Standard No. 209. If these belts are not seat belt assemblies, they are not eligible to be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 in place of seat belt assemblies otherwise required by Standard No. 208.

This argument is without merit. Contrary to the assertion in this argument, automatic belts which consist solely of a shoulder belt are "seat belt assemblies" within the meaning of S3 of Standard No. 209. That section defines a "seat belt assembly" as "any strap, webbing, or similar device designed to secure a person in a motor vehicle in order to mitigate the results of any

accident, including all necessary buckles and other fasteners, and all hardware designed for installing such seat belt assembly in a motor vehicle." An automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt falls squarely within this definition. Thus, an automatic belt consisting solely of a shoulder belt may be used pursuant to S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 to meet the crash protection requirements of the standard and in place of any seat belt assembly that would otherwise be required.

It may be that this argument was offered because the person was not aware that automatic belts are not generally subject to the provisions of Standard No. 209 that apply to manual seat belt assemblies, as explained in my March 30, 1992 letter to you. Thus, S4.1(b) of Standard No. 209 does not apply to automatic belts. In place of Standard No. 209's general requirements for manual seat belt assemblies, S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 sets forth special requirements for automatic belts. No provision of S4.5.3 of Standard No. 208 precludes the use of automatic belts that consist solely of a shoulder belt.

I hope this information clarifies any lingering questions you may have had. As before, if you need any further information on the requirements applicable to automatic belts, feel free to contact Steve Kratzke at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht92-6.16

DATE: June 5, 1992

FROM: Le Van Lac -- Vice President, Pioneer Electronic Services, Inc.

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TITLE: Re: For Legal Interpretation of 108-6, Sec. 5.1.3

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 7/31/92 from Paul J. Rice to Le Van Lac (A39; VSA 108(a)(2)(A))

TEXT:

We at Pioneer plan to sell a new car speaker in the U.S. We contacted Mr. Harry Thompson at your office and he advised me to write a letter with explanation to you in order to get your advice.

1. NEW CAR SPEAKER WITH ILLUMINATION: Car speaker will illuminate by a 12 volt DC car battery. this car speaker will be installed in the rear deck of a car. Cosmetically it it well designed with Pioneer brand name to be printed on the rear side of the speaker cabinet.

2. PURPOSE OF ILLUMINATION SPEAKER: By lighting Pioneer brand name with blue color at night (when the head light is switched on), we intend to give a favorable and refined impression to driver, passengers. This illumination car speaker will satisfy the customers who wish to have a high end and unique car speaker.

3. CONSTRUCTION: Light was originated from a lamp. There are 8 lamps for each left and right speaker. The light will go through a filter and then a transparent panel as the drawing.

Power consumption of a lamp inside the car speaker using filament type (glass tube) at 1.54 watt.

The brightness of this blue light illuminated through the filter and transparent panel is just 1/40 of the high mount stop lamp (measured at 1 meter at 14.4 volt). Therefore, this illuminated speaker will not impair the effectiveness of the existing lighting equipment installed into the car.

Attached is the information of this 4-way high-end speaker TS-X450 that has been selling at other countries.

Please help to review our request and we hope to receive your approval soon.

Thank you very much.

Attachment (Text and graphics omitted)

ID: nht92-6.17

DATE: June 4, 1992

FROM: Bart Gordon -- U.S. House of Representatives

TO: Adele Derby -- Associate Administrator for Regional Operations, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Frederick H. Grubbe to Bart Gordon (A39; Part 571.3)

TEXT:

Pursuant to your conversation with Claudia Deane of my Washington staff, I am writing to request a clarification of NHTSA's regulations regarding the use of 11-15 passenger vans for school purposes.

In my home state of Tennessee, there is currently some confusion as to whether schools which are in possession of these vans can use them to transport students. The vans are not being used as primary transportation, but instead are used for extracurricular activities such as transporting the debate team or the cheerleading squad.

It is my understanding that there are regulation against selling these vans for school use. My question is whether schools which currently own vans can use them.

In speaking with state officials, the point of confusion seems to specifically lie in the application of NHTSA's definition of a school bus to these vans, and following on this, whether the vans are required to be in compliance with school bus class safety standards. The state's interpretation of NHTSA's regulations has led them to advise schools to stop using the vans in the 11-15 passenger category.

I appreciate your attention to this question and look forward to receiving a response in the near future. If I can answer any questions or provide you with further information, please feel free to contact my office.

ID: nht92-6.18

DATE: June 3, 1992

FROM: Steven Henderson -- Department of Psychology, McGill University

TO: Michael Perel -- Research and Development, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 6/29/92 from Paul J. Rice to Steven Henderson (A39; Std. 108)

TEXT:

Thank you for your advice during our telephone conversation of May 19, and for your fax of May 20. The following letter, although originally written before our conversation, has been modified after consideration of the DOT regulations contained in your fax. I hope this letter contains sufficient information for evaluation by your legal department. Please excuse my reiteration of information from our previous conversation.

My name is Steven Henderson. I am a PhD student at McGill University, studying in the field of visual perception. I am requesting your assistance in advancing the examination of a U.S. patent application for a motorcycle hazard signalling device (filed the week of March 23, 1992). I also wish to know the opinion of your legal department regarding the extent to which DOT regulations apply to the signalling device.

About 4000 motorcyclists die every year in North America. I believe many of these deaths are due to the small size and low visibility of motorcycles, and, in collaboration with my coinventor David Kernaghan, have developed a device giving motorcyclists and bicyclists the capability of temporarily increasing their conspicuity to automobile drivers when circumstances warrant. The device is a flasher system that, in addition to signalling turns in the standard fashion, flicker the headlight, tail light, and signal lights at a rate of 10 flashes per second whenever the horn button is pressed. This flicker in the visual periphery of the car driver will initiate a reflexive saccade toward the motorcycle's location. (Vision researchers have found the human eye to be maximally responsive to a flash frequency of 10 Hz.) If the horn button is pressed while a turn is being signalled, the headlight flickers at a rate of 10 Hz, and only the actuated signal light gives out 2 Hz bursts of 10 Hz flicker. (My experience and those of other riders is that a motorcyclist is often aware of a developing dangerous situation one or two seconds before an approaching car driver sees the motorcycle, giving the device-equipped motorcyclist the opportunity to avoid an accident by signalling his or her presence to the car driver.) A photocell prevents the headlight from flickering at night. The device is also intended for use with automobile signal lights (but not automobile headlights).

The first question I wish to pose concerns the legality of the device under Section 571.108 S5.6 of the DOT regulations. On the face of it the device does appear to be proscribed by these regulations. However, the regulations are clearly intended to govern the characteristics of headlamp systems that are continuously modulated over extended periods of time, while my proposed system will be used only for very brief intervals (when the horn is sounding). The transitory nature of a signal such as a horn allows its use, even though the continuous blowing of the same horn would be considered a nuisance, and would surely be in violation of noise abatement bylaws. Indeed, the presence of a

working horn is mandated by law for all licensed vehicles, showing that a device that would be illegal if used continuously, can even be required by law if its utility as a warning device is recommended. Furthermore, the device does not violate the spirit of laws governing flashing lights and emergency vehicles, as its use would certainly not cause a motorcycle to be mistaken for an emergency vehicle. (The lights displayed at the front of an emergency vehicle are of a different color, flicker frequency, and intensity.) Finally, this DOT section may prohibit transient headlamp flicker without prohibiting transient signal light flicker at all.

The second question concerns the advancement of a patent application of the device. I strongly believe that in the interest of public safety, the device should be tested, and if found effective, should be made available to the motoring public as quickly as possible. However, as any competent technician or motorcycle mechanic could easily copy the device upon seeing it in use, I feel that patent protection must be secured before a test program is begun. Unfortunately, under normal circumstances the U.S. patent office takes about eighteen months to render a judgement after a patent application has been filed. If you and your legal department agree that the public interest is served by the advancement of examination in this case, I ask that immediate action be requested, in accordance with the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, section 708.01. The section states:

37 CFR 1.102.Advancement of examination.

(a) Applications will not be advanced out of turn for examination or for further action except as provided by this part, or upon order of the Commissioner to expedite the business of the Office, or upon filing of a request under paragraph (b) of this section ...

(b)Applications wherein the inventions are deemed of peculiar importance to some branch of the public service and the head of some department of the Government requests immediate action for that reason, may be advanced for examination.

Furthermore, the current U.S. GOVERNMENT MANUAL states that:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established to carry out a congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from auto accidents on the Nation's highways... (p.464)"

I believe that this congressional mandate indicates that the proposed invention should be "deemed of peculiar importance" to the NHTSA, and I therefore ask that the director of an appropriate department within the NHTSA make request for an advanced application under section 708.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, by supplying to me a letter addressed to the US Patent Office, which my patent attorney will forward, along with supporting documentation, to the U.S. Patent office.

I understand that such a letter is not an endorsement of the device by the NHTSA, and that the intent of the letter is solely to facilitate a research program to determine the device's lifesaving potential. Your letter would be communicated only to the U.S. Patent Office, and would never be used in a

publicity campaign or to in any way suggest that the device had received the endorsement of the NHTSA. I would certainly be willing to sign a letter to that effect.

Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. I look forward to your reply.

ID: nht88-1.75

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/17/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: LEON STEENBOCK -- ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER, ENGINEERING FWD CORPORATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 02/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO J. W. LAWRENCE, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 124; LETTER DATED 10/05/88 FROM J. W. LAWRENCE TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION FMVSS 124 ACCELERATOR CONTROL SYSTEMS; OCC 2650

TEXT: Dear Mr. Steenbock,

This letter responds to your letter of last year asking whether it is permissible under Federal motor vehicle safety standard 124, Accelerator Control Systems (Standard 124), to install a locking hand throttle control in a new motor vehicle. I apologize for the delay in this response. The answer to your question is no.

While you do not describe what you mean by a "locking hand-throttle control" in your letter, I understood you to mean the following. Some vehicle design configurations have a hand-operated device on the steering column that connects to the throttle leve l. In most design configurations, a driver may operate this device either by a turning or push-pull action. This device is commonly referred to as a "hand-throttle control."

These hand-throttle controls have two common applications. First, vehicles designed to be operated by physically disabled persons sometimes use a hand-throttle, rather than a foot-pedal, as the means for applying the actuating force that regulates the t hrottle valves and vehicle acceleration. Second, on some commercial vehicles, a hand-throttle control can be part of a system that allows a driver to use a hand control to regulate the engine fuel supply, and so to operate a power-driven accessory such as a generator while the vehicle is stationary with the transmission out of "drive." While the intended use of a hand-throttle control in a commercial vehicle may be only to power such an accessory, a driver still could use the throttle to control vehicl e acceleration. Nothing in Standard 124 prohibits a manufacturer from installing a hand-throttle control in its vehicles.

Some hand-throttle controls have a mechanism that permits the driver to lock the throttle valves open in a position other than idle even after the driver removes the actuating force. When you asked about "locking hand-throttle controls," I understood yo u to be referring to this type of design.

2

These "locking hand throttle controls" are expressly prohibited by Standard 124. Paragraph S5.1 of that Standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The pur pose of Standard 124 is to minimize the risk of accident due to ongoing runaway. (37 FR 7097, April 8, 1972.) Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm Standard 124 was adopted to address.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact Joan Tilghman of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

(EXCERPT FROM PRODUCT SAFETY AND LIABILITY REPORT DATED 04/02/88)

Leon Steenbock, administrative manager, FWD Corp., Clintonville, Wis., in a March 17 opinion, that it is not permissible under Standard No. 124 -- Accelerator Control Systems (Reference File, 901:0889) to install a locking hand throttle control in a n ew motor vehicle. These devices are expressly prohibited by the standard, Paragraph S5.1 of that standard requires that the throttle valves must be capable of returning to the idle position whenever the driver removes the actuating force. The purpose o f the standard is to minimize the risk of accident due to engine runaway. Consequently, a locking hand-throttle control would increase the risk of the very harm the standard was designed to reduce, Jones said.

7/1/87

Subject: FMVSS 124 Accelerator Control Systems

Attn: Erika Z. Jones:

having discussed this standard requirements with your office in the past, as they pertain to locking hand throttles controls, I was left with the interpretation that a vehicle with a locking hand throttle would not meet the requirements of this standard.

As I have never received a written opinion regarding lacking hand throttle controls would your office consider giving me a written opinion of this standard requirement in regards to the use of locking hand throttle controls.

Your earliest consideration would be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Leon Steenbock Administrative Manager, Engineering FWD Corporation

ID: nht88-1.76

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/18/88

FROM: R. C. ROST -- PRESIDENT; MINNESOTA BODY & EQUIPMENT CO.

TO: CHIEF COUNCIL -- U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: WE REQUEST THAT HEADSTART BUSES NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE ROOF WARNING LIGHTS IF A COLOR OTHER THAN SCHOOL BUS YELLOW IS USED.

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/26/88 TO R.C. ROST FROM ERIKA Z. JONES; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 108; LETTER DATED 12/21/77, TO JAMES TYDINGS FROM JOSEPH J. LEVIN; LETTER DATED 02/11/88 TO SHANON L. FOND FROM JERRY SMITH RE FEDERAL INTERPRETATION OF S CHOOL BUS USER; LETTER DATED 02/25/88 TO SHARON FOR FROM JERRY SMITH; UNDATED BROUCHERS ON SCHOOL BUS BY WAYNE CORPORATION

TEXT: Dear Council:

We request clarification of a matter pertaining to buses sold to Headstart organizations. As a bus dealer we are in a catch 22 situation where no matter what we do it is wrong. According to Department of Transportation Chief Council in 1977 Headstarts must comply as a school bus which would include construction, seats, roof warning lights and all items covered in FMVSS part 571, amended in the federal register (40FR60033) on Dec. 31, 1975.

1. All "school" buses over 10 passenger require roof warning lights whether yellow or non yellow.

2. Regional Headstart in Kansas City, Mr. Frank Magona, 816-426-5401, tells his district roof lights are not required on non yellow headstart buses and it is up to the individual states to set their own regulations and that Headstart does not recognize federal D.O.T. rulings. The same is true of Central Headstart in Atlanta.

3. The State of Iowa D.O.T. and Department of School Transportation say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and cannot have roof warning lights.

J. P. Golinvaux District Representative Iowa Department of Transportation Air and Transit Division State Capitol DesMoines, IA 50319 515-281-4265 Dwight R. Carlson Assistant Chief Bureau of School Adm. and Accreditation Grimes State Office Building DesM oines, IA 50319-0146 515-281-5811

4. The State of Wisconsin Department of School Transportation and Wisconsin D.O.T. say buses used for Headstart cannot be yellow and can not have roof warning lights.

Mr. Frank Potts Division of Planning Wisconsin Dept. of Transp. Po Box 7913 Madison, WI 53707 Donald Schneider Director School Transportation Supv. Pupil Transportation Po Box 7841 Madison, WI 53707 608-266-2853

5. We have no problem building a bus to meet school safety standards. School standards do not require the bus to be yellow so color is no problem. The only problem is the requirement for roof warning lights on a non yellow bus. If the conflict was no t considered in the previous 1977 ruling we ask that it be considered at this time. Since the buses do not say "school bus" they cannot use the lights to safely stop traffic.

6. What ever your decision we request that you start enforcing your ruling and make public to Headstart, all the states and the bus manufactures what your ruling is.

Since Headstart has several million dollars set aside to buy buses in 1988 we ask you to make this ruling as soon as possible.

Yours truly,

ID: nht88-1.77

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/21/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Robert A. Rogers -- Director, Automotive Safety Engineering, General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Robert A. Rogers Director, Automotive Safety Engineering General Motors Corporation General Motors Technical Center 30400 Mound Road Warren MI 48090-9015

Dear Mr. Rogers.

This respond to your recent letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFa 5571.209). Specifically, you stated that you believe that Standard No. 209 does not specifically address remotely actuated emergency-locking re tractors. You explained that you were referring to retractors that are actuated by a deceleration sensor that is located some distance from the retractor itself. You stated that the existing uncertainty discourage; vehicle manufacturers from considering the introduction of this technology. Additionally your letter claims that it is not clear whether the test procedures in Standard No. 209 are compatible with remote s ensors. NHTSA does not agree that there are existing uncertainties with respect to the applicability of Standard No. 209 to remotely actuated retractors.

The agency first addressed this issue many years back. In a letter to Mr. Nakajima of Toyota, dated March 16,1973 (copy enclosed), NHTSA explained that Standard No. 209 does address the issue of remotely actuated retractors. In that letter, we explained that both the remotely located sensor(s) and the individual solenoids, or other actuating devices on the retractor mechanism itself, would be considered seat belt assembly hardware for the purposes of Standard No. 209. All assembly hardware must be certi fied as complying with the requirements of S4.3 of Standard No. 209, including corrosion resistance and temperature resistance. This 1973 letter is still an accurate expression of the agency's opinion on this subject. Accordingly, there is no need to ini tiate rulemaking for Standard No. 209 to "ensure compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept."

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject please contact Steve Kratzke of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

January 26, 1988

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh St., S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Jones:

On December 1, 1987, representatives from General Motors (GM) and TRW participated in discussions with NHTSA relative to the concept of externally remotely actuated emergency-locking retractors as it might be applied to future seat belt assemblies. At th at time, GM noted that FMVSS 209 does not specifically address a retractor which is actuated by an electrical signal from a remotely located deceleration sensor. This omission introduces a regulatory uncertainty which discourages vehicle manufacturers fr om considering the incorporation of this relatively new technology into their restraint planning. Further, it is unclear whether or not the test procedures contained in FMVSS 249 are compatible with remote sensing. With this letter, we are requesting tha t the agency: 1) provide an interpretation affirming the regulatory permissibility of seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated emergency locking retractors, and 2) initiate rulemaking, if necessary, aimed at ensuring the compatibility of t he FMVSS 209 hardware and assembly test requirements and the remotely actuated seat belt retractor concept.

As the GM representatives noted in the December meeting, a strong case can be made for the position that FMVSS 209 currently provides for the use of remotely actuated retractors. There do not appear to be restrictions in the FMVSS 209 definition of seat belt assembly" which would preclude the use of specific seat belt assembly designs. Further, FMVSS 209 defines an emergency-locking retractor as one, "incorporating adjustment hardware by means of a locking mechanism that is activated by vehicle accelera tion, webbing movement relative to the vehicle, or other automatic action during an emergency and is capable when locked of withstanding restraint forces. We believe that this definition applies to a remotely actuated retractor.

There was general agreement among those in attendance at the December meeting that use of the term "retractor in the FMVSS 209 test procedures that apply (S4.3 and S5.2) could be interpreted logically to be a short hand notation for "retractor sub-system " . Such an interpretation is supported by the fact that neither the regulatory history of FMVSS 209 nor SAE J4c, which served as the basis for FMVSS 209, reference a need to restrict the design of retractors to ones with "built-in " mechanical sensing m echanisms. This view further supports a position that no restrictions have been or were intended to be placed on retractor designs given that the performance requirements of FMVSS 209 could be met.

It is our understanding based on discussions with TRW personnel that remotely actuated retractors can be designed to meet all existing FMVSS 209 performance requirements, including sensitivity. In fact, research to date suggests that the threshold sensit ivity of a retractor actuated by an electrical signal from a remote sensor exceeds that achievable with a retractor which incorporates a built-in mechanical pendulum. Thus, no easing of FMVSS 209 requirements would be needed to enable vehicle manufacture rs to include remotely actuated retractors in their restraint planning. Nor would special considerations be needed to encourage vehicle manufacturers to fully investigate the potential of remote sensing. As noted in TRW's discussion paper which was submi tted to NHTSA after the December meeting (copy attached), remote sensing offers significant potential for retractor downsizing and optimization of retractor locations--important factors in vehicle restraint design. Manufactures may also find further ince ntives when the flexibility offered by retractors which activate by electrical signals from remotely placed sensors is fully analyzed.

GM considers this request to be important because it relates to the compatibility of existing safety requirements with new and emerging technology. It is our understanding that agency policy dictates that its rulemaking not be technology limiting. on tha t basis, we request that NHTSA provide an interpretation that FMVSS 209 currently accommodates seat belt assemblies that incorporate remotely actuated retractors. Consistent with such an interpretation, we request that the agency review the hardware and assembly test requirements of FMVSS 209 for the purpose of ensuring compatibility with the remotely actuated retractor concept.

Finally, GM believes that time is of the essence and urges NHTSA to expedite its action on this request. Toward that end, we stand ready to provide any additional information at our disposal that

ID: Phillips.jeg

Mrs. Pam Phillips
1545 Stanley Blvd.
Calumet City, IL 60409





Dear Mrs. Phillips:

The State of Indiana Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, referred to this agency your complaint regarding the purchase of a used 1991 Mercury Sable from a local Lincoln Mercury dealer.

According to your letter, before you purchased the car, you noticed that the air bag light stayed on. You stated that an employee of the dealer told you "he would fix the air bag light that was staying on, that it would not be a problem for [you] just to bring the car back in and it would be taken care of." You stated that he did not tell you at the time of purchase that it was a great expense to correct the problem. You also stated that when you brought the car back in to get the light fixed, you were told they could not fix it, that "it was against federal law." You stated that you were never told that the light was on because the air bags were not working. You stated that you found out that the air bags did not work when your daughter was in a crash and the air bags never went off. You stated that you are very upset that the dealership sold a car that in your opinion should never have been sold to the public.

I am sorry to hear about the experiences you have had with your car. I am pleased to hear that your daughter was wearing her safety belt.

The laws we administer do not enable us to help you with the problem you identify. You may wish to consult with a private attorney to determine whether any remedies may be available to you under any other laws, including state laws.

It might be helpful to provide you with some background information about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and our requirements for air bag warning lights.

NHTSA has the authority under 49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq. to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle equipment. All motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment manufactured or imported for sale in the United States must comply with all applicable safety standards.

One of the standards we have issued under this authority is Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Manufacturers install air bags in their vehicles to meet the requirement of this standard. Moreover, with regard to air bag indicator lights, paragraph S4.5.2 of Standard No. 208 requires a readiness indicator for an air bag system which is clearly visible from the driver's seating position. The purpose of the readiness indicator is to advise vehicle occupants of problems in the air bag system.

The Federal motor vehicle safety standards do not apply to used vehicles. There is a provision of Federal law that prohibits a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or vehicle repair business from knowingly making inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in accordance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard. This provision would prohibit a dealer from disabling a readiness indicator on a used vehicle that shows a problem with the air bag system. However, it would not have the effect of requiring a dealer to repair a used vehicle with an air bag system that has a problem.

I note that the "make inoperative" provision would not prohibit a dealer from repairing the air bag system, including a problem with the readiness indicator, on a used vehicle. NHTSA, in fact, recommends that all safety systems on used vehicles be in good working order.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to call Edward Glancy of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

cc:   State of Indiana
Office of the Attorney General
Consumer Protection Division
RE: File No. 99F702
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
402 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770

ref:208
d.5/1/01