ID: nht76-3.10

DATE: 08/19/76

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank A. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: William K. Rosenberry Esq.; Attorney at Law

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client "may rely on the warranty of a fabric manufacturer that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(1)(A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems, No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Interior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the non-compliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397(b)(2)).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seq) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alternations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

ID: nht78-4.31

DATE: 08/19/78

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- ACTING CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY -- ATTORNEY AT LAW

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: LETTER DATED JULY 14, 1976 TO GEORGE SHIFFLET, NHTSA, FROM WILLIAM K. ROSENBERRY IS ATTACHED.

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of July 14, 1976, to George Shifflett of the Office of Standards Enforcement, on behalf of a client who intends to install a different type of seat, carpeting, and headliner in a pick-up truck, which would then be sold to the general public. You asked whether a fabric supplier must test each fabric lot for flammability before certification to Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 can be given, and whether your client (Illegible Word) reply on the warranty of a fabric manufacture that the fabric sold meets the requirements" of Standard No. 302.

You are correct in your understanding that the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seg) apply to your client. His basic responsibility is to ensure that the vehicles he modifies are in compliance with the Federal standards when delivered to dealers for sale to the public. (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (1) (A)) A temporary noncompliance during modifications is permissible if the vehicle is not used on the public roads while noncompliant (15 U.S.C. 1397 (a) (2) (A)). Standards which would appear to be affected by your client's modifications include: Standard No. 207 Seating Systems. No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, No. 210 Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages and No. 302 Flammability of Inferior Materials.

As a person who alters a certified vehicle other than by the addition of readily detachable components, your client is also required to attach his own certification of compliance to each modified truck (49 CFR 567.7). Should a noncompliance be discovered as a result of an alterer's modification, the alterer would be liable for a civil penalty unless he could establish that he did not have actual knowledge of the noncompliance, and that he did not have reason to know in the

exercise of due care that the vehicle did not comply (15 U.S.C. 1397 (b) (2).

With respect to Standard No. 302, there is no requirement that a fabric supplier "test each fabric lot for flammability before certification." In point of fact, 49 CFR 571.302 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 302 does not apply to suppliers but only to vehicle manufacturers (or alterers) and it is they who are required to certify compliance with Standard No. 302. Generally, at a minimum, a vehicle manufacturer will require by contract with the supplier that the fabric meets Standard No. 302. In the exercise of "due care" the manufacturer may wish to examine the basis for the supplier's assurance of compliance, and to require periodic testing of the fabric being supplied him. Since there is no requirement that each fabric lot be tested, such testing as is conducted should be sufficient to demonstrate in the event of a noncompliance that the vehicle manufacturer has exercised due care. As to whether your client may rely on the "warranty" of his supplier, it has been our experience that simple reliance is insufficient to establish a "due care" defense. That manufacturer should examine the supplier's test results to insure that the margin of compliance of the test fabric is great enough that production variables do not result in noncompliance. Some manufacturers even conduct their own tests independent of the supplier.

Your client would also be responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign (15 U.S.C. 1411 et seg) if a noncompliance or safety-related defect occurs in the truck as a result of the alterations.

I enclose copies of the Act, 49 CFR Part 567, and Standards Nos. 207, 208, 210, and 302 for your information.

Enclosures

ID: nht88-1.17

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/15/88

FROM: ALICE COLLINS

TO: ERIKA Z JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/01/88 TO ALICE COLLINS, FROM ERIKA Z. JONES, REDBOOK A32, PART 571.3

TEXT: Dear Ms Jones,

I am behind, to say the least, in writing you.

I am a parent of three children. Two of school age. Plus I do a lot of volunteer work for two school. Part of my volunteer work is driving for field Trips.

I checked out my new vehicle for over 1 year before buying. I chose a 1986 (new) Ply. Voyger mini-van and then in the 1986-87 school year your dept. decided they were unsafe. But in your letter to Mr. Larry H McEntire Administrator, School Transport ation - Fl. Dept. of Education, Dated Aug 7, 1986.

2 I noted that Ply. Voyger was not listed. And the classification of M.P.C. was used on all mini vans, are not these classification made for several reason - and $ having one big reason for foreign vehicle.

Anyway, I am sure you have had many letter, phone calls etc in the past year over parent using vans to transport children for school trips So please review the papers enclose, I feel you see that the Ply. Voyger meet more requirements of a passenger c ar than a truck.

Please review this Mini Van. I feel my children and family are safe in my voyger than a car. No one wants to have an accident. And even the school buses that have been in accident lately have had had injurys - crush tops & sides. Where are the seat Belts?

3

I feel your Department is closing the doors to a better answers to transport our children on short field trips.

You know the driver counts for more than just the kind of vehicle. The driver should be $99[Illegible Word]

Our children are missing out on alot of short educational trips. The schools can not afford to use schools buses for the short trips.

Will Amy Ukey please read enclosed papers and let me know if there is any way to change the Department decision on the Ply. Voyger Mini-Van.

Thank you

Do you have a toll free Phone Number?

(Attachments omitted.)

ID: nht71-4.2

DATE: 08/10/71

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Charles H. Hartman; NHTSA

TO: Ford Motor Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In the conference that was held on July 23, 1971, between Ford representatives and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration personnel concerning Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (memorandum dated July 29, 1971, filed in Docket 69-7), your legal counsel raised a question concerning the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's position with respect to enforcement of the standard.

The question raised was whether this agency would consider a motor vehicle not to conform to the standard if the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tests showed noncompliance, but the manufacturer's analogous tests showed compliance, and the difference in results were due to the use of slightly different anthropomorphic test devices, with both sets of tests assumed to be run in accordance with the prescribed conditions and procedures of the standard. We agree that the question is an important one and that it may arise, because the complexity of the physical variables in crash testing with anthropomorphic devices makes it difficult if not impossible to refine the standard's specifications to the point where all relevant conditions are specified and all permissible variations eliminated.

In a case where tests conducted by the NHTSA show noncompliance with a standard, and the manufacturer's tests, valid on their face, appear to give complying results, the NHTSA conducts an inquiry to determine the reason for the differing results. If, after completing such an inquiry, the NHTSA were to conclude that the difference in results was entirely due to differences in the

test devices used by each, and further that the manufacturer's tests, including his test devices, were in complete conformity with the standard, then the agency would not consider that particular series of tests to be the basis for a finding of noncompliance against the manufacturer.

I hope that this clarifies the matter for you.

ID: nht81-3.36

DATE: 11/12/81

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSR INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of September 17, 1981, requesting NHTSA's confirmation that certain small, utility-type vehicles to be produced by General Motors would be classified as "light trucks" for fuel economy standards compliance purposes. In your letter you point out that these future vehicles, at least in base form excluding optional rear seats, would have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger-carrying volume, a criterion for classifying vehicles as light trucks under our regulations.

As you correctly note, SAE Recommended Practice J1100a specifies that cargo and passenger volumes are to be determined on the basis of a "base" vehicle, i.e., one without optional equipment. Further, EPA regulations set forth in 40 CFR 600.315-79(c) provide that all dimensions and volumes are to be determined from base vehicles without options, for purposes of grouping vehicles in classes of comparable vehicles. Strictly speaking, however, neither the SAE Practice nor the EPA provision explicitly apply to the determination of cargo-carrying volume for utility vehicles under our vehicle classification regulations in 49 CFR Part 523. Those regulations are silent on the issue of the inclusion of options for determining interior volume.

Nevertheless, to achieve uniform treatment for passenger automobiles and light trucks and to reduce the complexity of accounting for different variations of vehicles sold based on optional equipment, we interpret Part 523 to require that vehicle classification be determined on the basis of the vehicle without optional equipment installed. Therefore, we agree that two-wheel drive utility vehicles which are truck derivatives and which, in base form, have greater cargo-carrying volume than passenger-carrying volume should be classified as light trucks for fuel economy purposes.

Environmental Activities Staff

General Motors Corporation

September 17, 1981

Michael M. Finkelstein Associate Administrator for Rulemaking National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Finkelstein:

In response to General Motors' March 31, 1980 question on vehicle classification for fuel economy purposes, your August 12, 1981 letter stated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act would not permit NHTSA to classify two wheel drive utility vehicles, i.e., Blazer and Suburban, as light trucks for off-highway use if they were under 6000 lbs. Vehicles designed to perform "truck-like" functions on-highway can also be classified as light trucks. We realize your agency must work within the requirements of the statute and the 6000 lb. GVWR limit cannot be changed by regulation. However, your letter did not consider the alternative on-highway classification route for utility vehicles to be classified as light trucks.

49 CFR Part 523.4(a)(4) of the fuel economy regulations allows a two wheel drive vehicle under 6000 lbs. GVWR to be classified as light truck if the cargo-carrying volume is greater than the passenger-carrying volume. The cargo and passenger volumes are determined in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Society of Automotive Engineers Recommended Practice J1100a, Motor Vehicle Dimensions (Report of Human Factors Engineering Committee, SAE, approved September 1973 and last revised September 1975). All dimensions are measured to the base vehicle and do not include Regular Production Options (RPO). Both our current Blazer and Suburban offer a folding second seat as an option. The cargo volume easily exceeds the passenger volume on the base models without the optional second seat. These models are designed for commercial use and their cargo carrying capability is significant without the second seat. Therefore, these vehicles qualify as light trucks independent of the 6000 lb. GVWR requirement. When we produce future downsized utility models, less than 6000 lb. GVWR, these vehicles will also qualify as light trucks if their cargo volume exceeds the passenger volume on the base vehicle.

More important, the critical issue in utility or multipurpose vehicle classification is their cargo carrying capability which is inherently derived from the base pickup truck. NHTSA agreed with this truck derivative implication in their Vehicle Classification Final Rule 42 F.R. 38366(1977). Since the same truck chassis is used for both the pickup and the utility models (Blazer or Suburban) they both are light trucks.

Our future product programs are proceeding according to the above interpretation of the vehicle classification regulation. Your confirmation of this interpretation would be appreciated as soon as possible.

T. M. Fisher, Director Automotive Emission Control

ID: 1921y

Mr. Richard J. Strohm
100 Devon Lane
Naperville, IL 60540

Dear Mr. Strohm:

This responds to your letter, referred to me by Mr. Edward Jettner of this agency, which asked the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to authorize the adjustment of the front seat in your Chevrolet Caprice by your automobile dealer. I regret the delay in responding.

Your letter and enclosure explained that you would like your dealer to move back the front bench seat in your newly-purchased vehicle to give you more leg room. You stated that the front seat in your new vehicle is mounted closer to the front of the vehicle than the seat in your former car had been, and that you were more comfortable with the latter seat placement. You said that you contacted a customer service representative and that he told you Chevrolet is prohibited by law from moving the seat. You asked how Chevrolet can obtain authorization to make the desired adjustments. Federal law does not directly prohibit your dealer from adjusting the seat; it does, however, indirectly set limits on the modifications.

By way of background, NHTSA is authorized by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers must certify that their new vehicles and equipment conform to all of our safety standards applying to their product. If a new vehicle is modified before its first sale to a consumer, the person making the modification would have to certify that the vehicle, as altered, continues to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Moving back a seat on a new vehicle could affect compliance with Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, and No. 210, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages. A dealer is not prohibited from making changes in the seat position as long as the modified seat and related safety components continue to perform in the manner required by the applicable standards.

Your situation involves the modification of a vehicle after its first sale to a consumer. While our safety standards apply only to new vehicles, there are some statutory restrictions on modifications of this type. If a vehicle is modified after its first sale, then /108(a)(2)(A) of the Vehicle Safety Act would apply. That section provides, in pertinent part:

No manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business shall knowingly render inoperative, in whole or part, any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard ...

Your dealer is not prohibited by /108(a)(2)(A) from making the seat adjustment if the adjustment can be made without rendering inoperative your vehicle's compliance with any applicable Federal safety standard. It may be that the dealer you contacted has determined that it cannot move the seat rearwards without rendering inoperative a component or element of design now in compliance with the Federal safety standards.

The prohibition of /108(a)(2)(A) only applies to commercial businesses, not to individuals. Thus, under Federal law, vehicle owners may themselves make any modifications to their vehicles. They must, however, comply with any applicable State laws limiting modifications.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood Acting Chief Counsel ref:207#VSA d:7/3l/89

ID: nht90-2.55

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 29, 1990

FROM: G. Nick Routh -- President, American Energetics

TO: Jere Medlin -- Office of Vehicle Safety Standards, NHTSA

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 8-1-90 from J.M. Fish to C. Mack (A35; Std. 205); Also attached to letter dated 5-30-90 from G.N. Routh to C. Mack

TEXT:

We are distributors of solar control window insulation film, selling our product to over 1000 installers across the United States. Over the past six years an increasing percentage of our sales are derived from "auto tint". Currently about 70% of our sa les come from the auto market. Film applied to car windows has become increasingly popular.

Unfortunately several events are putting our livelihood and the livelihoods of our customers in jeopardy. Specifically, the Justice Department has sued a number of film installers in Florida for violation of federal guidelines, at the direction of NHTSA . At the same time, a group of manufacturers in our industry are petitioning NHTSA to revise its guidelines.

We feel that NHTSA, in reviewing the guidelines, and the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA, are not heeding some basic points that are key to the argument. We will explain our thoughts here by posing a number of questions.

1. HAS NHTSA SURVEYED THE CONSUMING PUBLIC?

We note that NHTSA, in responding to the original petition of the film manufacturers asking for 35% VLT, cited a number of questions about the safety of film and then asked for commentary from "interested parties". We imagine that the interested parties were law enforcement agencies for the most part who clearly constitute a special interest group. Did NHTSA speak to drivers who have film on their autos?

Did NHTSA survey Florida, Texas or other Sunbelt residents, particularly those of advanced age for whom reduced glare is very important in light of cataracts, glaucoma and the like?

People who are not familar with film inevitably have a jaundiced view of auto tint, seeing it only as black material, not aware of the different light transmission properties available. You would find, if you researched the matter, that consumers vote w ith their dollars where auto tint is concerned and are generally always repeat buyers.

2. WHAT ARE THE RIGHTS OF THE STATES?

Following from the last question, we must note that perhaps 70% of auto tint sales are in the Sunbelt. This is no coincidence. It is bright in these states year around. You would no doubt find that the bulk of

sunglasses are sold in these states. Why can't individual states note the differences between each other by having differing laws that recognize their differences? Clearly, there are areas where states have differing statutes on their books regarding a utomobile accesories and aftermarket add-ons. Specifically, we are speaking of radars, the use of head phones while driving, driving lights, studded snow tires and of course, auto emissions restrictions. Of all these, auto tint stands out as an obvious area where concrete climatological factors strongly support the use of film.

We believe that most states that have written their own laws regarding film, have done so, like Florida, in the firm belief that federal guidelines apply to new car manufacture, not to the aftermarket, where a consumer may choose to customize his car, us ing the installer or mechanic as an agent, as long as state standards are adherred to.

3. WHY ARE SOME LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS OPPOSED TO FILM?

This is a very interesting question to us. Any auto tint installer will tell you that law enforcement officers number among his customers. Informal discussions with officers reveal that officers approach an auto with film on it as they would any car the y stop - with caution. Film will not hide weapons; a weapon may be held below the window level on any auto. Further, a van with no windows could conceal more than the darkest film.

There is an annual publication issued by the FBI dealing with the deaths of law enforcement personnel in the US at the local, state and federal level. This is the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted part of the Uniform Crime Report. The statis tics are organized by the nature of the incident resulting in a death. It is our understanding that a study of the last ten years of these reports, together with a reading of the anecdotal information provided, nowhere points to auto tint being a key fa ctor in the demise of an officer. We hear it often repeated that officers are endangered by film on windows, but concrete evidence is not to be had, we believe.

We do think that auto film is an easy target for ignorance. Police who are not familar with the different levels of VLT will react negatively, envisioning the black material. The vast number of states that have adopted the use of 35% VLT film on the dri ver and passenger windows have all had that film reviewed by their law enforcement officers and they have approved the use of the film.

4. WHAT IS THE HARM OF IT?

There are no federal guidelines that address themselves to the large market for radar detectors, yet this product is clearly designed to assist motorists in evading speeding tickets. Auto tint is not designed to evade the law. Rather it is beneficial t o the user, protecting the car against UV damage, preventing glass shattering in the case of accidents, and reducing glare. To pursue the latter point, why is film suspect and sunglasses not? Sunglasses are normally sold in much darker shades than the window film that is being applied.

Further, there is some argument to the point that film reduces the load on auto air conditioning, particularly those films that are lightly metallized. The conclusion to be drawn here is that film has got to have some benefit in reducing gas consumption . Evidently, we would regulate something beneficial such as film, but not regulate radar detectors.

With regard to highway safety, which is what is the central issue here, there appears to be a great deal of confusion. Statistics show that the accidents and deaths per passenger mile driven have not changed significantly over the last generation while the use of auto film has grown dramatically. This would certainly indicate that films darker than FMVSS 205 would allow, which are allowed by the Sunbelt state statutes, are not contributing to a reduction in safety on our nation's highways.

5. WHY ARE CAR OWNERS ALLOWED TO DO WHAT FILM INSTALLERS ARE NOT?

If the government has determined to regulate film, we are amazed by the evident loophole that exists. From our readings of NHTSA communications, we understand that individual car owners will be permitted to install any film on their own cars, so long as they adhere to state guidelines which are more permissive than current federal quidelines. However, film installers would have to adhere to the more stringent federal guidelines. We would like to know why the installer can't be considered the agent of the car owner? Why is the installer being singled out to discriminate against?

To speak bluntly, this inequity will allow film manufacturers to sell film in the Do-It-Yourself or retall market and bypass the fllm installers who will not be allowed to install the preferred darker films which will now only be available in the DIY mar ket? In the back of our minds we feel some concern that the manufacturers, in petitioning NHTSA are not acting on our behalf. The inequity will close us out but keep them in business and dark film will still be available.

Conclusion:

If NHTSA takes the position that its guidelines preempt state guidelines it fails to recognize clear regional differences and preferences. If NHTSA leaves an inequity for individual car owners to install darker film than installers can, it discriminates unfairly. If NHTSA solicits input from organized lobby groups either pro or con on the issue and fails to speak to individuals who have film on their cars, it is not geting the full picture.

We feel strongly that the states should regulate this issue. If the federal government sees fit to regulate, it should allow film of at least 35% VLT on the driver passenger windows, which is agreeable to the southern states who use the bulk of the prod uct. Further, if NHTSA regulates, it should not discriminate as to who applies the material.

We feel that we, our fellow distributors numbering perhaps over 30 across the US, and the over 5000 installers across the US are in jeopardy of losing our livelihoods without a hearing. Were we organized into a strong lobby group with resources we might be better able to deal with federal

institutions. We have two allies - plain talk and over half a million car owners a year who have film installed on their car.

ID: 2250y

The Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino
U. S. House of Representatives
2332 Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Lagomarsino:

Thank you for your letter to Secretary Skinner on behalf of your constituent, Mike Dunn. You inquired about a school bus passenger restraining device marketed by Mr. Dunn. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration received an inquiry concerning a similar device in 1988. A copy of our responses, which detail the requirements applicable to such a device, are enclosed. I will summarize those requirements below.

The device being marketed by your constituent, a "safety bar" for school bus passengers, consists of a padded metal bar which is attached to the seat back of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants are to be protected by the safety bar. The bar is hinged to swing up to allow entry and exit of the occupants. The hinge mechanism also allows the bar to drop slightly from its lowered position upon impact in an attempt to reduce the likelihood of abdominal injury. The device operates much like the passenger restraint bars found on certain amusement park rides.

As explained by the enclosed letters, federal law does not prohibit the installation of your constituent's product on school buses as long its installation and use would not destroy the ability of the required safety systems to comply with the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). If the safety bars are to be installed in any new school bus, the manufacturer of the bus would have to certify that the bus with the safety bars installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.222).

As the enclosed letters explain, the use of the safety bar would not obviate the need for a school bus with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection (49 CFR Part 571.208). That standard requires that such vehicles be equipped with either safety belts or automatic restraints at all passenger seating positions.

In addition, as explained in the enclosed letters and information sheet, the manufacturer of the safety bars would be considered a manufacturer of motor vehicle equipment within the meaning of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.). Such a manufacturer is responsible for conducting a notification and remedy campaign if the company or this agency decides that the product contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety, or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard.

I hope you have found this information helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Jerry Ralph Curry

Enclosures /ref: 208, 222 d:l/8/90

ID: nht90-2.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/19/90

FROM: CARL HEINZ FABER -- MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA

TO: BARRY FELRICE, ASSOCIATE -- ADMINISTRATOR FOR RULEMAKING NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: ARMREST STORAGE COMPARTMENT

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 06/14/90 FROM PAUL JACKSON RICE -- NHTSA TO KARL HEINZ FABER; A35; STANDARD 20

TEXT: In the near future, Mercedes-Benz vehicles will come equipped with new armrests between the two front and, where applicable, two rear seating positions. The new design will have a built-in compartment that can accommodate car phone storage. It will be covered by a lift-up lid that will afford easy access to the phone for the driver so that he can keep his basic attention on driving without having to deal with a small latch. A blue-print of the armrest is enclosed.

Our new armrest complies with the requirements of Standard 201 S3.5.2 which state that armrests that fold into the seat back or between two seat backs shall "Be constructed of or covered with energy-absorbing material."

In addition, we believe that the center armrest lid is not covered by S3.3 and S3.3.1, based on the fact that S3.3 (Interior Compartment Doors) is very specific as to the components and the locations of compartment doors which must be tested. It specifi es neither the armrest itself nor a location between designated seating positions as being subject to S3.3.1.

Based on the above and in an effort to remove the car phone from an exposed interior position where it could interfere with the driver's use of controls, potentially be contacted by the head, or be insufficiently secure in case of collision, we will init iate production of the above described phone holder/armrest in the very near future.

If any member of your staff would like additional information, they should please contact Thomas Baloga in our Safety Engineering department at (201) 573-2616.

Enclosure

ID: nht72-4.4

DATE: 08/25/72

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your request of August 7, 1972, for the data used to support the conclusions we announced in Notice 20 of Docket 69-7 concerning the ignition interlock for the center front position and the ability of seat belt systems to meet a 60g, 3-millisecond injury criterion in 1975.

In evaluating the petitions for reconsideration of the center seat interlock requirements, we followed the techniques of cost/benefit analysis adopted in our earlier studies of passive restraints (see General Reference items 42, 43, and 99). The anticipated incremental benefit from an interlock at the center position was $ 9.70 per vehicle, which, when divided by the incremental cost of $ 7.00 supplied by Ford Motor Company (N<16>-69-7-3), produced a favorable ratio of 1.4. Although the analysis was completed, it was used as a rough working paper and was not submitted to the docket. A typed draft of the analysis is being prepared for submission to the docket.

Although we decided to grant interim relief for belt systems from the 60g, 3-millisecond chest injury criterion, several manufacturers submitted data which indicated to us that their present systems were capable of meeting the criterion or that they were close enough that minor modifications would enable them to meet it. The data from your own organization (N<13>-69-7-16) showed that a number of cars were passing the criterion by comfortable margins. The Chrysler data, for example, revealed that in 9 tests no dummy recorded chest accelerations in excess of 50g's. Although General Motors, in its comment, submitted data on subcompacts which indicated a problem with chest accelerations, the data from their larger vehicles ranged between 38 and 52g's. (N<13>-69-7-20). Toyota also submitted test results with most accelerations in the range of 45-50g's, with only one test of a Corolla appearing to show a marginal condition (N<13>-69-7-23).

From our research contracts, a number of sled tests have been conducted at Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory (General Reference No. 135), and most of these produced accelerations of between 30 and 50g's. From other sources have come data indicating that such improvements in belt design as the use of tear seams can produce significantly lower accelerations (see, e.g., General Reference items 161, 166, and 167).