Interpretation ID: nht90-3.48

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: August 2, 1990

FROM: Rembert Ryals -- Attorney at Law

TO: Steven Krapzke -- NHTSA

TITLE: Re Schmidt - Volkswagen

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-12-79 from F. Berndt (signature by S.P. Wood) to F. Pepe (Std. 209); Also attached to letter dated 9-10-90 from P.J. Rice to R. Ryals (A36; Std. 208; Std. 209)

TEXT:

I assume you probably thought you had heard the last from me. However, before I can satisfy myself and my clients that the 1980 Volkswagen which my clients' son was driving when he was killed was in compliance with the CFRs, I need the answer to two or three additional questions.

My client has obtained a copy of the CFRs which were in effect when the Volkswagen was manufactured. These are noted as having been revised October 1, 1979. My client, whose husband is an engineer, has compared the regulations with those that succeeded them and finds no material difference. However, I wanted you to know the date of the standards to which I am referring because I am going to note certain page numbers and, in fact, will enclose a copy of two or three pages and wanted to be certain you knew that these where the 1979 regulations. In short, the page numbers may not correspond with the regulations which are now current but as stated, they do not materially differ.

First, enclosed is a copy of page 307. An examination of S4.1.2.1 states that the automobile must meet the lateral crash protection requirements of S5.2 and the roll-over crash protection requirements of S5.3. You have previously told me that the regul ations are performance standards and you talked to me about vehicles being subjected to head-on collision tests at certain speeds. Page 310 of the regulations, and particularly S5.3, states that a vehicle must pass the "roll-over" requirements. My clie nts' son's vehicle was killed when his vehicle rolled and we have an expert who is recognized throughout the Northwest who has stated that if the boy had had a fastened lap seat belt, his injuries would have not been severe. However, our Volkswagen did n ot have any lap seat belt in it when it was manufactured. I wanted you to let me know whether the Volkswagen did pass the "roll-over" test.

I also enclose a copy of page 319 which relates to Standard 571.209. That standard seems to unequivocally state that there must be a pelvic restraint in the vehicle, whether or not there is an upper torso restraint and that this pelvic restraint must be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of the vehicle. As stated, had there been a seat belt in this vehicle, the boy would not have been severely injured and certainly would not have been killed. That is at least the opinion of our expert.

Please give me your understanding as to whether the Volkswagen was subjected to the roll-over test and did satisfactorily pass it and,

secondly, please comment on the apparent inconsistency between 571.209 and the provisions of 208.

I will look forward to hearing from you and wish to thank you in advance for your assistance.

Attached is a copy of Federal Register, sections 571.208 and 571.209, Chap. V, pages 307, 309, 310 and 319 (text omitted).