ID: 11445JEG

Mr. Michael Love
Manager, Compliance
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
100 West Liberty Street
P.O. Box 30911
Reno, Nevada 89520-3911

Dear Mr. Love:

This responds to your letter concerning the requirements of Standard No. 208, AOccupant Crash Protection,@ with respect to cut-off devices for air bags. Your letter addresses NHTSA's May 1995 final rule in which we decided to permit manufacturers, until September 1, 1997, the option of installing a manual device that motorists could use to deactivate the front passenger-side air bag in certain passenger cars.

You ask whether a system you have developed "qualif[ies] as an automatic cutoff, and therefore should be permissible under FMVSS 208." The following discussion explains that the system you describe is permissible under FMVSS 208 and that it is unnecessary to determine whether the system is "automatic."

You described your system as consisting of:

. . . a special rearward-facing child seat which, when properly installed in the vehicle, disables the passenger airbag. . . . Attached to the child seat is a special strap and buckle tongue. The vehicle is equipped with a buckle receiver installed under the front of the passenger seat (installed upon request by a Porsche dealer). When the buckle tongue is inserted into the buckle receiver, a signal is sent to the airbag control unit disabling the passenger airbag. Since the disablement function is engaged during the process of installing the child seat in the car, and is disengaged as part of the process of removing the child seat from the car, we believe it qualifies as Aautomatic.@

You also stated that Asince the special buckle is permanently attached to the child seat, the air bag can be disabled only when the child seat is properly installed,@ and that Athe buckle is different from the other seat belt buckles used by Porsche, so disablement of the air bag using a normal seat belt is not possible.@

In analyzing whether your device is permissible under Standard No. 208, it is not necessary to determine whether the device is "automatic" or "manual." That dichotomy, which was used by the agency in previous discussions of cutoff devices, simply reflects an underlying inquiry as to whether a given cutoff device would create the possibility of a vehicle being tested under Standard No. 208 both with the device in the on position and with the device in the off position. The particular manual devices considered by the agency during its rulemaking all created that possibility. Your device, whether "manual" or "automatic," does not raise that possibility.

Prior to the rulemaking to permit certain manual cutoff devices, Standard No. 208 did not explicitly address cutoff devices. The issue arose in response to growing concern about the danger to infants in rear-facing child seats from passenger side air bags. The possibility of manufacturers providing certain kinds of manual cutoff devices (e.g., on-off switches) raised a test condition issue. The standard=s dynamic crash test could be run with the device on or off, and the issue was which way the test should be run. Based on the language and purposes of Standard No. 208, NHTSA concluded that the dynamic crash test requirement must be met regardless of whether a manual cutoff device was on or off. Since the standard=s crash test requirements presumably could not be met with the air bag deactivated, the standard effectively prohibited these manual cutoff devices. See 59 FR 51160, October 7, 1994.

Based on the information provided in your letter, a vehicle equipped with your system would not be tested with the air bag deactivated. Your device operates in a fundamentally different manner from the type of manual device discussed in the recent rulemaking. This is because, with your device, the only situation in which an air bag would be deactivated is when a child seat is located in the front seat. Since the Standard No. 208 test is conducted only with a 50th percentile male dummy located in the front seat, a vehicle equipped with your device could satisfy Standard No. 208 without creating the possibility of a test condition in which the air bag is deactivated.

It is true that this result is consistent with the agency's description of devices we characterized as "automatic." In the October 1994 notice, NHTSA explained that "automatic" cutoff devices were allowed by Standard No. 208. The agency contemplated that Amanufacturers would design these devices so that they would automatically ensure that the front passenger air bag is activated during the barrier crash test. . . [whenever]. . . a 50th percentile adult male dummy is in the front seat.@ So while there is the similarity that Standard No. 208 would be met without two possible test conditions, our concept of "automatic" presupposed a system meeting the Standard No. 208 tests with the 50th percentile male dummy in the front seat.

Similarly, as NHTSA explained in a June 14, 1995, letter to GenCorp Aerojet, Standard No. 208 Adoes not preclude the use of automatic cutoff devices for passenger air bags, so long as the devices ensure that the air bag automatically deploys under the specific dynamic crash conditions specified in the standard.@ The agency noted that these conditions include a specified barrier crash test, with a 50th percentile male dummy properly positioned in the seat.

I should add that the rear-facing child seat you describe is a Achild restraint system@ as defined in Standard 213, AChild Restraint Systems@ (49 CFR '571.213), and thus subject to all applicable requirements of that standard. Further, in a compliance test governed by the requirements of Standard 213, NHTSA will test the child restraint using only a vehicle lap belt to attach the system to the standard seat assembly used for such tests. The special strap and buckle will not be attached. (See S5.3.2 and S6.1.2.1.1(a).)

I would like to conclude by noting that, in our rulemaking to permit manual cutoff devices, we decided to permit such devices for only a limited period of time. In the intervening time, we believed it was possible that manufacturers could develop and introduce fully automatic cutoff devices, i.e., ones that would work without any action by the driver and for all rear facing infant restraints, as well as in other special situations where it would be beneficial to deactivate the air bag. We remain hopeful that such systems will be introduced in the foreseeable future. In the short term, however, we recognize that a system such as the one you describe could provide safety benefits. While drivers would need a special infant restraint with an extra buckle and would need to remember to latch the buckle, the system would provide a means by which the driver could deactivate the air bag while transporting a rear facing infant restraint in the front seat.

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

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel ref:208 d:3/15/96

ID: nht74-5.13

DATE: 03/12/74

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Lawrence R. Schneider; NHTSA

TO: McIntosh & Boynton

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 19, 1974, forwarding to us for approval a draft notification letter regarding the Checker front seat adjuster (CIR-727).

The one remaining problem we have with your letter is in the second paragraph. Because Checker is a manufacturer of motor vehicles, the appropriate determination by Checker pursuant to @ 577.4(b)(1) is that the defect exists in the motor vehicles in question. Your second sentence should be changed, and may be changed to read, "The Checker Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in some 1972 model Checker vehicles manufactured from December 9, 1971, through April 5, 1972, and results from improperly installed front seat adjuster assemblies."

We have decided to accept notification letters in which the reference to "some" vehicles (@ 577.4(b)(2)) is placed in the sentence required by @ 577.4(b)(1).

SINCERELY,

Dear Checker Owner:

This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act.

The Checker Motors Corporation has determined that a defect which relates to motor vehicle safety exists in the front seat adjuster. This defect exists in some 1972 model Checker vehicles manufactured from December 9, 1971 through April 5, 1972 and results from improperly installed front seat adjuster assemblies.

Your vehicle is equipped with an adjuster assembly which allows selective fore and aft positioning of the front seat (see attached illustration). The seat is secured at the selected position by the engagement of a pawl and notch on the right and left hand seat adjuster track. The right hand pawl is engaged by a spring and disengaged by a wire attached to both the left and right hand pawl. If tension was introduced in the wire during installation, it may not allow full engagement of the pawl and notch at the right hand seat adjuster track. If a vehicle with only partial engagement between the pawl and notch is involved in an accident or is suddenly decelerated, the seat could slide forward and cause injury to the front seat occupants from impact with the vehicle interior (windshield, dashboard and steering column).

You are urged to take your vehicle to a Checker dealership to have the front seat adjuster installation checked for proper operation. Should your seat adjuster require repair, your Checker dealer will at "no cost" to you:

1. Using the prescribed template, drill four (4) 3/16 diameter holes through the center section of the seat frame.

2. Install a new pawl actuator wire.

3. Anchor the pawl actuator wire with a 1/8 x 1 cotter pin at the hole which removes the minimum amount of slack necessary to accurate the right hand pawl.

In the majority of cases, the actual work described above will take less than 30 minutes, however, prior to taking your vehicle to a Checker dealership, it is suggested that you contact the dealer's service department and determine when service time will be available. The necessary parts and instructions will be available at Checker dealerships by March 1, 1974. Presentation of this letter will assist you in obtaining this service.

CHECKER MOTORS CORPORATION

ID: nht91-2.43

DATE: March 22, 1991

FROM: H. George Johannessen, P.E. -- Chairman, Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (AORC) Seat Belt Technical Committee

TO: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: Barry Felrice -- NHTSA Associate Administrator for Rulemaking; Dan Cohen -- NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; Clarke Harper -- NHTSA Office of Vehicle Safety Standards; S.R. Kratzke -- NHTSA Office of Chief Counsel; Alfred J. Fisher, III -- Chairman, AORC Board of Directors; Charles H. Pulley -- President, AORC; Donald P. Reed -- Reed Technical Relations

TITLE: Subject: Request for Interpretation; Re: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 209; Seat Belt Assemblies - S4.1(b)

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-8-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to H. George Johannessen, P.E. (A38; Std. 208; Std. 209; Std. 210)

TEXT:

The primary purpose of the Automotive Occupant Restraints Council (formerly the American Seat Belt Council, organized in 1961) is to reduce highway traffic accident fatalities and injuries by providing the motoring public with the most reliable and effective occupant crash protection systems; and beyond this, by conducting a continuous education program, to promote public acceptance and use of such systems. The membership of the AORC represents 90% of the total domestic seat belt industry and domestic inflatable restraints industry.

Member companies of AORC supply seat belt assemblies produced in compliance with applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 209; Seat Belt Assemblies. A portion of Paragraph S4.1 (b) of FMVSS 209 states that ". . . the pelvic restraint shall be designed to remain on the pelvis under all conditions, including collision or roll-over of a motor vehicle."

The cited statement first appeared in SAE Standard J4c developed by the SAE Seat Belt Committee and issued in 1965. This SAE standard served as the basis for seat belt standards issued subsequently by the Department of Commerce (National Bureau of Standards) in 15 CFR 9 in 1966 and FMVSS No. 209, issued by the National Highway Safety Bureau in 1967. The SAE Committee included the cited statement as a design goal to alert seat belt designers to give full consideration to this aspect of performance. The committee members were aware that they had no objective test procedure to confirm compliance with this design goal. Also, they were aware that the seat belt would not necessarily remain on the pelvis during the entire collision event in all of the varied collisions encountered in the field. The writer was an active member of the cognizant SAE committee and agreed with the committee's decision to include the cited statement as a design goal despite the lack of an objective test protocol to confirm compliance and the recognition that the design goal would not be realized in some collision events. Furthermore, the committee members were aware that there could be no guarantee that the goal would not be thwarted by the vehicle occupant by non-use or misuse of the seat belt or by abnormal position of the belted occupant.

Unfortunately, positioning of the seat belt off the pelvis, for whatever reason, has been cited in recent litigation as prima facie evidence that the seat belt does not comply with the federal standard and the seat belt design is defective. The need to refute the allegations of design defect and non-compliance with applicable standards leads to unnecessary expenditure of time and effort and unconscionable societal costs.

The AORC requests the NHTSA to provide an interpretation that recognizes that off-pelvis location of a Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of a Type 2 seat belt assembly before, during or after a real world collision does not per se constitute noncompliance of the seat belt with the federal standard nor does this render the seat belt design defective. Such a formal interpretation is necessary to mitigate unnecessary costs in litigation and the resultant societal costs.

The AORC considers that time is of the essence and requests NHTSA to act as quickly as possible on this request. Personnel from the AORC staff or member companies will be pleased to provide any additional available information that the agency may need.

ID: Full Display Mirror System 1 GM Feb 11

ID: 12411-1.PJA

Mr. Ronny D. Choate
C&J Enterprises
4024 Fiesta
Hobbs, NM 88240

Dear Mr. Choate:

This responds to your letter asking which Federal vehicle safety regulations you must comply with in producing your police patrol vehicle, a converted full size pickup truck. The bed of the pickup truck has been enclosed with a shell and outfitted along one side with bench seats that face sideways toward the centerline of the vehicle. These seats are outfitted with lap belts for two seating positions.

Along with general questions about Federal standards, you asked specifically about requirements for roof crush testing of the shell and installation of seat belts for the bench seats. The short answer to your question is that your altered vehicle would have to meet all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) applicable to pickup trucks, including those for roof crush testing and occupant restraints in the bench seats.

Before addressing your specific questions, I will provide a summary of our regulatory system. This agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the authority under 49 USC Chapter 301 to issue FMVSSs and related regulations applicable to new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not approve or endorse products. Vehicle and equipment manufacturers are responsible for "self-certifying" that their products comply with all applicable standards. They must also ensure that their products are free of safety-related defects.

When sold to the first purchaser (in this case, a police department), a vehicle must meet all standards applicable to pickup trucks. A vehicle manufacturer must submit certain identifying information to NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR Part

566, Manufacturer Identification. The manufacturer must also meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, and place on the truck a label with information specified in 49 CFR 567.4, including the vehicle's gross axle and gross vehicle weight ratings.

A person or business modifying a new pickup truck according to your plans would be considered an "alterer" of the truck, and therefore would have certain certification responsibilities. An alterer is a person who modifies a previously certified, new motor vehicle (i.e., before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale). Since the modifications you are planning involve the addition of components that would not be considered "readily attachable," under 49 CFR 567.7 (copy enclosed) the alterer must affix to the vehicle an additional label with the following statement: "This vehicle was altered by (individual or corporate name) in (month and year in which alterations were completed) and as altered it conforms to all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards affected by the alteration and in effect in (month, year.)" If the modifications alter the vehicle in such a manner that its original weight ratings are no longer valid, the new weight rating information must be provided.

In addition, if the alterer or NHTSA determines that the product contains a safety related defect caused by the conversion of the pickup, the alterer would be required to notify all owners of the defect and to provide a remedy without charge. (See sections 30118-30122 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code concerning recall and remedy requirements).

Regarding your specific question on roof crush testing of the shell over the bed of the pickup, we believe that it would not have to be tested. The test procedures in FMVSS No. 216, Roof crush resistance, are designed to test the vehicle's roof crush strength at the front corners of the roof, in the area at the top of the A-pillars (the structural members on either side of the windshield). The test device (a rigid flat plate) is inclined forward at an angle of 5 degrees and outward at an angle of 25 degrees, so a relatively low profile shell would probably not be contacted during the test, and in any case would not be providing most of the resistance. However, you should be aware that modifications to the back of the pickup cab (for example, to create a passage to the bed area) may affect the strength of the roof over the front occupant compartment. Any decrease in strength could degrade performance in the roof crush test. In this case, the alterer would not be able to rely on the original manufacturer's basis for certification that the vehicle meets FMVSS No 216.

Concerning requirements for installing seat belts for the side facing bench seat, each seat would be considered a "designated seating position" within the meaning of 571.3 since your design envisions bed mounted seats that would be used as a seating position while the vehicle is in motion. As the seats are to be installed as an item of original equipment before the first sale of the vehicle to a retail purchaser, the designated seating positions on your product would have to comply with the requirements of Standard No. 207, Seating Systems; Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection; Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies, and Standard No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages.

Your letter indicates that you plan to install lap-only (Type 1) safety belts at these seating positions to comply with Standard No. 208. This would be consistent with the requirements of Standard No. 208, which permits these designated seating positions to be equipped with either Type 1 or Type 2 (lap/shoulder) safety belts.

There are a few other standards to which I would like to draw your attention. If the shell you are going to add slides into place on the back of the truck, another standard that you should pay particular attention to is FMVSS No. 126, Truck-camper loading, because the shell that you will add would be considered a "camper." This standard has requirements for the provision of information about weight and loading. If you will be increasing the weight of the vehicle, you should consider FMVSS No. 119, New pneumatic tires for vehicles other than passenger cars, and FMVSS No. 120, concerning tire selection and loading. Since you may be obstructing the view of the inside rearview mirror by adding the shell, you should ensure that the correct mirrors are installed pursuant to S6 of FMVSS No. 111, Rearview mirrors.

I hope this information is helpful. I am also enclosing a copy of a fact sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." It outlines other laws and regulations that you should be aware of. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Mr. Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosures

ref:216#208#126#119#111

d:11/26/96

ID: nht79-3.3

DATE: 08/28/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt for Joan Claybrook; NHTSA

TO: Honorable David Boren - U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

AUG 28 1979

Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

This responds to your letter of August 2, 1979, on behalf of your constituent, Mr. Thomas J. Weaver, regarding problems he is having with the automatic belt system on his Volkswagen Rabbit. Apparently, the belt system does not properly fit Mr. Weaver, and Volkswagen has stated it cannot lower the driver's seat to correct the problem because of Federal regulations.

Before getting into the details of this matter, I want to express my admiration for Mr. Weaver in his efforts to obtain the benefits of his safety belts. It is discouraging to hear that a person wishing to use his belts is unable to do so. However, I must stress that we have no authority to compel a manufacturer to alter a vehicle in a situation like this. The most we can do is attempt to clarify whether it is federal law or other factors that led to Volkswagen's reluctance to make the alterations desired by Mr. Weaver.

The discussion in the letter you received from Mr. Kenneth Adams, Volkswagen's Washington representative, needs some clarification. Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires passenger cars to be equipped with safety belts that adjust to fit drivers ranging in size from a 5th-percentile adult female (weighing about 102 pounds) to a 95th-percentile adult male (weighing about 215 pounds). Therefore, the regulation requires safety belts to fit at least 90 percent of the driving population. Of course, nothing prohibits manufacturers from designing their belts to fit 100 percent of the population, and the agency encourages manufacturers to do so. The standard is only a minimum requirement, allowing manufacturers some leeway because of unusual body sizes at either end of the spectrum.

Mr. Adams also stated in his letter to you that lowering the seat would change the performance characteristics of Volkswagen's belt system and would make it necessary "to begin the entire testing process for certification again." This statement too requires clarification. At the present time, Safety Standard No. 208 does not require safety belts as installed in motor vehicles to meet dynamic performance requirements. Dynamically testing safety belts would entail restraining a test dummy with a vehicle's safety belts and testing their performance by crashing the vehicle into a test barrier. In such testing, the position of the seat in relation to the belts would be important. However, the current requirements do not involve testing safety belts inside the vehicle. They require that the belts meet certain laboratory tests and that belts capable to passing those tests be installed in new vehicles.

Further, regardless of the type of performance standards involved, lowering the seat of a used vehicle could not raise any question about recertification. Certification relates to new vehicles exclusively. The only question which lowering the seat would lose under our statute, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, would be whether lowering the seat would cause equipment installed pursuant to Federal safety standards to no longer be in compliance. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers and repair businesses from knowingly rendering inoperative safety equipment. If this prohibition is the concern of Mr. Adams of Volkswagen, perhaps he can clarify for your constituent how Volkswagen believes lowering the seat would violate that prohibition. Mr. Adams does not state that lowering the seat would preclude the belt system from adjusting to fit the range of people specified in the standard.

It may be that Volkswagen's reluctance to lower the seat stems from a concern about products liability. Lowering the seat could very well alter the performance of the Volkswagen automatic belt system.

In an effort to promote further clarification of Volkswagen's position, I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Adams. The only further thing I can do is suggest that Mr. Weaver contact Mr. Adams again and obtain his reaction to my letter. Perhaps we can then see what other alterations are available. I hope some adjustment can be made to accommodate Mr. Weaver.

Sincerely,

Joan Claybrook

Enclosure Constituent's Correspondence

cc: Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative Volkswagen of America, Inc. 475 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20024

August 2, 1979

The Honorable Joan Claybrook, Administrator National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

Enclosed are copies of a letter from a constituent concerning a problem he is experiencing with his new car seat belts and the corresponding answer from the government relations department of the car manufacturer.

As evidenced from the letter from the car manufacturer, the Federal Government requires that the car be equipped with seat belts that will fit more than 90% of the population. What is to be done for those other 10% who must try to cope with the regulations on seat belts, but do not want to do anything violative of the law and are unable to get any relief from the car manufacturer?

I would appreciate it if you could give me some information that would be helpful to Mr. Weaver. If you know of any special waiver to the regulations that can be granted on an individual basis such as this, it would be very helpful in assuring that Mr. Weaver is given full satisfaction while still obeying the regulations under which he must operate his car.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you may be able to give in this matter. Your full attention to this problem is respectfully requested.

Sincerely,

David L. Boren United States Senator

Enclosures

July 3, 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Boren:

Thank you for the inquiry from Mr. Thomas J. Weaver regarding the seat belt system in his Volkswagen 4-door Rabbit-L Diesel vehicle.

I have personally checked with our safety engineers regarding the possibility of modifying Mr. Weaver's seat belt system. The system in Mr. Weaver's Rabbit is 100 percent in compliance with Federal standards for occupant crash protection. In fact, it is the Federal government that requires our seat belts to fit more than 90 percent of the American population.

To comply with these Federal standards, Volkswagen employs an integrated passive belt system in the model that Mr. Weaver owns. The occupant is protected by a combination of design features in the car which include the belt itself, a kneebar, the wheel and a special type of seat. If we were to lower the seat, the performance characteristics of our belt system would change, and it would be necessary to begin the entire testing process for certification again.

Therefore, because of the requirements of Federal laws in this area, we are unable to recommend an adjustment in the height of the seat.

If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kenneth R. Adams Deputy Washington Representative

KRA:hk

025 N. Sherry Avenue Norman, Oklahoma 73069 21 April 1979

The Honorable David Boren United States Senate Washington, D. C.

Dear Senator:

I recently purchased a Volkswagon 4-door Rabbit-L diesel automobile. The seat belts in the front seats are attached to the front doors so the seat belts "put themselves on" as the driver and front seat passenger enter the car. When I am driving the seat belt should come over my left shoulder. Instead it comes across my left arm. In an emergency situation where the seat belt mechanism became locked, this would severly restrict the use of my left arm in turning the steering wheel and could cause an accident.

Due to the large backlog of orders, I was not able to test drive this model car before purchase. Soon after delivery I notified the local dealer, Thunderbird Imports, of this problem and requested the front seats be lowered which would eliminate the problem. I was told the local dealer could not modify any of the safety system without the authorization of at least the regional office.

On 3 April 1979 I sent letters to the San Antonio Regional Office and the national headquarters in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, stating the problem and requesting that the front seats be lowered. On 19 April a representative from the San Antonio Regional Office, Jack Atwood, observed the situation but stated the car was made to specifications and no modifications could be made. The seat belts fit him properly--but he doesn't drive my car! Mr. Atwood passed the buck stating that only the U.S. Government could authorize changes to an approved automobile design. Today I recieved a letter from the San Antonio Regional Office confirming they would do nothing to correct this safety hazard.

Is there anything you can do have them lower the front seats of my car? I realize this is a lot of difficulty to make my car safer to drive. In their current position, I feel the seat belts are more likely to contribute to accidents and injury than to prevent them.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Weaver

Copy to: Thunderbird Imports

ID: 11-004197 Kiddy USA belt guide -shield cracks -atd lift (Std 213)

ID: nht88-1.67

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 03/10/88

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Rusty Mitchell -- A-Z Bus Sales, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Rusty Mitchell A-Z Bus Sales, Inc. P.O. Box 9389 5555 W. Mission Blvd. Ontario, CA 91762

This is a response to your letter of November 11, 1987, in which you asked for information on the "application of seat belts in school buses." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for developing safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses. In 1977, we issued a set of motor vehicle safety standards regulating various aspects of school bus performance. Among those standards is Standard 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection. Standard 222 requires large school buses (those with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds) to afford passe or crash protectio n by means of "compartmentalization."

Compartmentalization requires large school buses to incorporate certain protective elements into the vehicles interior construction, thereby reducing the risk of injury to school bus passengers without the need for safety belts. These elements include hi gh seats with heavily padded backs and improved seat spacing and performance.

Our regulations require a safety belt for the school bus driver because the driver's position is not compartmentalized. Further, because small school buses (10,000 pounds or less GVWR) experience greater force levels in a crash, Standard 222 requires the added protection of safety belts at each passenger position in a small school bus.

School buses continue to have one of the lowest fatality rates for any class of motor vehicle. Large school buses are among the safest motor vehicles because of their size and weight (which generally reduce an occupant's exposure to injury-threatening cr ash forces), the drivers' training and experience, and the extra care other motorists usually take when they are near a school bus. For these reasons, our regulations do not require safety belts for passengers in large school buses.

I enclose a copy of a June 1985 NHTSA publication titled "Safety Belts in School Buses," which discusses many of the issues relative to this subject.

You also asked whether there is an order form listing available data for safety belts in school buses. This agency does not publish "order forms" for any data. For further information on this subject, you may wish to contact individual school bus manufac turers to ask for data about safety belts in their buses. I hope you find this information helpful.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

November 11, 1987

Ms. Erika Z. Jones National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 7th Street S.W. Washington. D.C. 20590

Ms. Jones:

We need information regarding the application of seat belts in school buses.

Is there an order form with a listing or all data available if so, who do we contact, and can we order several copies of each?

Ms. Jones, any information you can send us would be greatly appreciated.

Thank You,

Rusty Mitchell Sales Representative

RM/df

ID: aiam3009

Dear Mr. Nodar: This is in reply to your letter of March 28, 1979, asking for a interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123 as it relates to a manual fuel shut off control design that McCulloch Corporation wishes to incorporate in a future model.; Table 1 of Standard No. 123 specified the following operating position for a manual fuel shut off control: 'Off' - control forward, 'On' - control downward, and 'Reserve' (if provided) - control upward. The control that McCulloch would like to provide is a simple on-off knob control that in plan view is perpendicular to the ground and operates from on to off when a seated operator rotates it to the right, or counter-clockwise, direction. The control would be identified by the words 'Fuel off' and an arrow pointing to the right.; In our opinion, the McCulloch control does not comply with Standard No 123. The safety rationale for NHTSA's operating position is expressed in the response to petitions for reconsideration of the rulemaking action that adopted it:; >>>'The NHTSA has determined that the control should be standardized b requiring its operation along a longitudinal rather than a transverse axis. In this location there is a greater likelihood that in the event of a crash the control will be carried by inertia to the off position, thereby shutting off the fuel' (37 FR 17474, Aug. 29. 1972).<<<; The McCulloch control possesses neither the control positions no identification specified by Standard No. 123, nor does it appear that, in a crash, inertia would carry it to an off position.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Acting Chief Counsel

ID: nht88-3.44

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: STEVE ZLOTKIN -- OVERLAND PARTS, INC.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED 12/08/87 FROM STEVE ZLOTKIN TO ERIKA Z. JONES, OCC 137

TEXT: Dear Mr. Zlotkin:

This is in response to your letter seeking an interpretation of Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR @ 571.205). Specifically, your letter stated that your company would like to import some non-laminated windshields into the United States. I apo logize for the delay in our response. As explained below, your company is prohibited by Federal law from importing or selling this type of windshield because it does not comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205.

Standard No. 205 establishes performance and marking requirements for all glazing installed in motor vehicles. The standard incorporates by reference the requirements of Standard ANS z-26, "Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehi cles Operating on Land Highways," of the American National Standard Institute. Standard ANS Z-26 requires that glazing materials for windshields must pass a specified group of test requirements. ANS Z-26 specifies that glazing materials that comply wit h these test requirements for windshields must be marked AS-1. To date, the only glazing materials that have been marked AS-1 have been laminated safety glass. Unless your non-laminated windshields can meet the requirements for AS-1 glazing and are mar ked AS-1, they do not comply with the requirements for windshields specified in Standard ANS Z-26 or Standard No. 205. You also should be aware that Standard No. 205 permits glass-plastic glazing.

The importation and sale of noncomplying glazing would be a violation of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act ("Safety Act"), the statute under which Standard No. 205 was issued. Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act provides:

No person shall manufacture for sale, sell, offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate commerce, or import into the United States, any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment manufactured on or after the date any a pplicable Federal motor vehicle standard takes effect under this title unless it is in conformity with such standard...

Your letter set forth two interpretations of the law under which you suggested that your company might be able to import noncomplying windshields. Your first interpretation relied on the fact that these windshields can only be installed in vehicles that were manufactured between 1953 and 1967. Since Standard No. 205's requirements for windshields did not become effective until January 1, 1968, you suggested that the provisions of section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act might not apply, because no safet y standards were applicable to these vehicles. This suggestion is incorrect.

All windshields manufactured on or after January 1, 1968 must comply with the requirements of Standard No. 205, regardless of the year of manufacture of the vehicle on which the windshield is designed to be installed. In fact, safety standards relating to components such as brake hoses, lighting equipment, tires, glazing materials, seat belt assemblies, and wheel covers are applicable to components manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, even if those components are manufactured for motor vehicles ma nufactured before that date. In a January 16, 1987 interpretation letter to Mr. Peter Cameron-Nott (copy enclosed), the agency stated that the above listed component parts including glazing materials that were manufactured on or after January 1, 1968, w ould have to comply to the relevant safety standards (in the case of glazing, Standard No. 205) even though the underlying motor vehicle was a 1965 Jaguar.

Assuming that the non-laminated windshields that were the subject of your letter were in fact manufactured after January 1, 1968, Standard No. 205 applies to those windshields. As already noted, Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits your comp any from importing any windshields that are subject to Standard No. 205 that do not comply with that standard.

Your second suggestion is that your company would be willing to place a sticker on these windshields to warn purchasers that the windshields do not comply with Standard No. 205. The Safety Act contains no exception to section 108(a)(1)(A)'s prohibition for noncomplying equipment, even if it were to be labeled as noncomplying. Hence, section 108(a)(1)(A) prohibits the importation of noncomplying windshields without regard to any warning labels on the windshields.

I hope this information is helpful.

ENCLOSURE