ID: itemco.jeg

Mr. Maury Solel
Marketing Manager
Itemco Industries, Inc.
57 Cedar Court
Closter, NJ 07624





Dear Mr. Solel:

This responds to your letter asking about the implications of "supplying to the automotive aftermarket a generic air bag." I apologize for the delay in responding. You ask whether the requirements of Standard No. 208 apply to such air bags. Based on a telephone conversation between you and Edward Glancy of my staff, we understand that you contemplate supplying replacement air bag modules for vehicles whose air bags have deployed in crashes. Your question is addressed below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is authorized under Title 49, Chapter 301 of the U.S. Code (Motor Vehicle Safety) to issue Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSSs) that apply to the manufacture and sale of new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. The FMVSSs apply in different ways. Some apply only to new motor vehicles ("vehicle standards"), others apply to new items of motor vehicle equipment ("equipment standards"), while others apply to both new vehicles and new equipment.

One of the standards established by NHTSA, Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.208), requires air bags to be installed in cars and light trucks. This standard sets forth a number of performance requirements related to air bags. With one exception, Standard No. 208 is a vehicle standard. Manufacturers of new vehicles are required to certify that their vehicles comply with Standard No. 208. The exception is paragraph S9, which is also an equipment standard. This paragraph specifies requirements for pressure vessels and explosive devices for use in air bag systems. Therefore, manufacturers of pressure vessels and explosive devices must certify that they comply with the requirements of S9 of Standard No. 208. You could not sell a replacement air bag module with these components unless the new components were certified as meeting the requirements of S9.

At this time, there are no other Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to air bags as items of motor vehicle equipment.

However, a manufacturer of a replacement air bag module would be a motor vehicle equipment manufacturer and would be subject to the notification and remedy requirements for products with defects related to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30118-30121). A "defect" includes "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment." "Motor vehicle safety" is defined as "the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance." 49 U.S.C. 30102.

If the manufacturer or NHTSA determined that the product had a defect related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer would have to notify all product purchasers of the defect, and either:

1. Repair the product so that the defect is removed; or

2. Replace the product with an identical or reasonably equivalent product that does not have the defect.

The manufacturer would have to bear the full expense of the recall campaign, irrespective of the option chosen, for any owner who purchased the product less than 10 years before the determination that the defect existed.

There is also a statutory provision that limits how certain entities may modify motor vehicles. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers and motor vehicle repair businesses are prohibited from knowingly making inoperative any part of a 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 (49 U.S.C. 30122). This provision would generally prohibit one of these entities from removing a functional air bag that was installed in compliance with Standard No. 208.

Your letter raises the issue of whether, when a deployed air bag is replaced, Federal law requires use of a replacement air bag that will enable the vehicle to comply with Standard No. 208. The answer to this question is no. Our statute does not require a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or repair business to return a vehicle to compliance with a standard if a device or element of design has been "made inoperative" by another agent, such as a crash. Thus, Federal law does not require that deployed air bags be replaced or regulate the manner in which such air bags are replaced. However, as explained above, replacement bags must be free of safety-related defects. In addition, some States may have requirements applicable to such replacements.

Furthermore, we emphasize our concern that in order for a replacement air bag to provide protection to vehicle occupants, it is essential that the replacement be properly completed. The repair should be performed according to the procedures specified by the vehicle manufacturer. This may require replacement of system components in addition to the air bag inflator module such as crash sensors, wiring and other electronic components as specified by the manufacturer. Moreover, since air bags are designed for specific vehicles, taking into consideration such factors as the seats, steering column crush stroke force resistance, location of the air bag, location and nature of knee bolsters, and compartment acceleration responses in frontal crashes, we strongly believe that only air bags which are designed for the vehicle in question should be used. Finally, after the air bags are replaced, it is important that the air bag readiness indicator be in good working order to alert the occupants of any future malfunction of the air bag system.

I also note that, during the past several years, this agency and the industry have focused a great deal of attention on ensuring that air bags are designed to create less risk of serious air bag-induced injuries for persons who are close to the air bag at time of deployment. Among other things, manufacturers have reduced the power of many of their air bags and have used innovative fold patterns to reduce the aggressivity of air bags. The fold patterns may be unique to a specific vehicle model. We would suggest that you carefully consider this issue in designing your product.

Enclosed for your information is an information sheet titled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment."

Finally, you may wish to consult a private attorney concerning the state law implications of supplying replacement air bag modules, including possible tort liability implications.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.4/11/01

ID: Lewis.3

Mr. Walter J. Lewis
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA30328




Dear Mr. Lewis:

This responds to your letter asking about the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205, Glazing Materials. You ask: (a) whether Item 4A glazing "may continue to be used in the "C" pillar of vehicles and between the B and D pillars in hearses if those locations meet the criteria for Item 4A glazing"; and (b) if Item 4A glazing may be used in certain locations rearward of the B-pillar on the Porsche Cayman S and Porsche 911 GT2 and GT3 vehicles. As explained below, in answer to both questions, we cannot interpret the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the "C" pillar.

S5.5, "Item 4A Glazing," of FMVSS No. 205 states:

Item 4A glazing may be used in all areas in which Item 4 safety glazing may be used, and also for side windows rearward of the "C" pillar.I.e., Item 4A glazing may be used under Item 4A paragraph (b) of ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 only in side windows rearward of the "C" pillar.

"Item 4A paragraph (b)" of ANSI/SAE Z26.11996 states that Item 4A glazing may be used in the following locations: "In a vehicle whose rearmost designated seating position is forward-facing and cannot be adjusted so that it is side or rear-facing and, the forwardmost point on the visible interior surface of the glazing, is rearward of the vertical transverse plane that passes through the shoulder reference point (as described in Figure 1 of 49 CFR 571.210 Seat belt assembly anchorages) of that rearmost seating position".

You believe that FMVSS No. 205 permits the use of Item 4A glazing in side windows anywhere in the vehicle as long as the provisions of "Item 4A paragraph (b)," above, are met. You state that the preamble to an August 12, 1996 final rule permitting Item 4A glazing adopted criteria (in former S5.1.2.11) equivalent to those of Item 4A paragraph (b), above, and that the preamble allowed for a wide application of the glazing.You quote the following from the preamble adopting S5.1.2.11:

Since the adopted criteria do not limit Item 4A installation to locations between the "C" and "D" pillars in station wagons and hatchbacks, they permit Item 4A glazing installation in any vehicle location that can meet that approach. Thus, Item 4A glazing could be installed in the "C" pillar of vehicles and between the "B" and "D" pillars in hearses (funeral coaches) if those locations met the criteria. (61 FR 41739)

Discussion

We cannot agree that S5.5 permits Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the C pillar. The wording of S5.5 is clear that Item 4A glazing may be used only in side windows rearward of the C pillar. The regulatory history of S5.5 also illustrates that the reference to the C pillar was not inadvertent, as explained below.

FMVSS No. 205 incorporates by reference the American National Standard Institutes (ANSI) Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways (ANSI Z26.1). In July 2003, NHTSA amended FMVSS No. 205 to update the reference from the then-referenced 1977 version of ANSI Z26.1 to the 1996 ANSI standard (July 25, 2003; 68 FR 43964). At the time, the agency believed that the requirements for Item 4A glazing were adequately presented in the 1996 version of ANSI Z26.1, and accordingly deleted S5.1.2.11 that had specified the locations in which Item 4A glazing may be used. The agency subsequently realized that the 1996 ANSI standard does not contain the location restriction for Item 4A glazing that the agency sought to have. NHTSA published a correction to the final rule (68 FR 55544; September 26, 2003) to add S5.5 to the standard "to make clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows rearward of the C pillar." The September 26, 2003 final rule takes precedence over the preamble of the August 12, 1996 final rule. In light of the 2003 correction, which reflected the agencys view of the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing only in side windows rearward of the C pillar, ^[1] we cannot interpret S5.5 as you suggest.

We note further that even the August 12, 1996 final rule whose preamble you quote placed the regulatory text permitting Item 4A glazing under the heading, "S5.1.2.11 Test procedures for Item 4ARigid Plastic for Use in Side Windows Rearward of the "C" pillar" (emphasis added). Thus, even S5.1.2.11 did not permit Item 4A glazing to be used forward of the C pillar.

In your letter (with accompanying photographs), you discussed the Porsche Cayman S and Porsche 911 GT2 and GT3 vehicles. The vehicles do not have rear designated seating positions. You ask if Item 4A glazing is permitted for side windows forward of the C pillar "[u]sing the same logic applied to the hearse case discussed in the 1996 final rule (i.e., that there is no opportunity for head contact with this piece of glazing) ." Interpreting S5.5 as you suggest would render meaningless the agencys statements in the September 26, 2003 document, discussed above, that made clear that Item 4A glazing is only permitted for use in side windows rearward of the C pillar. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we cannot interpret the standard as permitting Item 4A glazing in side windows in locations other than rearward of the C pillar.

If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Wood
Acting Chief Counsel

ref.205
d.4/25/06





---

^[1] In a July 12, 2005 document further correcting S5.5, the agency reiterated that it had corrected the standard after discovering that the incorporation of the 1996 version of ANSI/AE Z26.1 "inadvertently permitted item 4A glazing to be used in side windows rearward of the B pillar".

ID: nht88-3.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 11/03/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- CHIEF COUNSEL NHTSA

TO: JOSEPH F. MIKOLL -- VICE PRESIDENT TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CORP.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED LETTER DATED 03/10/89 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA TO JOSEPH F. MIKOLL, REDBOOK A33, STANDARD 217, 222 AND 302; LETTER DATED 12/15/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKOLL TO ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA, OCC 2812; LETTER DATED 08/11/88 FROM JOSEPH F. MIKO LL TO ERIKA Z. JONES

TEXT: Dear Mr. Mikoll:

This responds to your recent request for confirmation of your understanding that school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less would comply with the existing requirements of the safety standards if those buses were equip ped with a new occupant protection device your company is considering producing. As explained below, this device could not be installed in small school buses as a substitute for safety belts at those seating positions. Assuming those seating positions are equipped with safety belts, the seating positions could also be equipped with this device if the addition of the device does not prevent the safety belts from complying with the requirements of the safety standards.

The new device you are considering producing is a "safety bar." This bar consists, in part, of two curved metal poles in planes that are parallel to the longitudinal centerline of the bus. These curved poles are joined by three cross members that are pa rallel to the seat and covered with padding. The padded surface is angled at the top slightly back from the vertical. The curved metal poles are attached to the outside of the seat in front of the seat whose occupants will be protected by the "safety b ar," so that the padded surface extends over the entire width of the seat whose occupants it is designed to protect. When the seat whose occupants are to be protected by this "safety bar" is unoccupied, the padded surface rests approximately on the lati tudinal centerline of the seat. When an occupant wishes to be seated, he or she must lift the "safety bar" and then sit down. The "safety bar" will then rest on the occupant's thighs. Additionally, a special strap that resembles a very long seat belt assembly must be fastened around the safety bar to hold it in position in the event of a crash.

The crash protection requirements for school buses with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in S5(b) of Standard No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.222). That section provides that these school buses must be capable of meeting the

requirements of Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @ 571.208) as it applies to multipurpose passenger vehicles, at all seating positions other than the driver's seat.

The requirements of Standard No. 208 that apply to multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less are set forth in section S4.2 of Standard No. 208. That section specifies that multipurpose passenger vehicles with a GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less shall meet the requirements specified for passenger cars in either S4.1.2.1, S4.1.2.2, or S4.1.2.3 of Standard No. 208. Each of these three subsections of S4.1.2 requires each rear designated seating position to be equipped with a safety b elt. S4.1.2 gives manufactures the option of substituting a protection system "that requires no action by vehicle occupants" for a safety belt at any or all rear designated seating positions.

Your proposed "safety bar" requires two specific actions by vehicle occupants; i.e., lifting the bar so that the seat can be occupied and buckling the strap to hold the bar in place. Therefore, the "safety bar" could not be considered a protection syste m that "requires no action by vehicle occupants," for the purpose of S4.1.2 of Standard No. 208. Accordingly, each rear designated seating position in small school buses equipped with this "safety bar" must also be equipped with safety belts.

Assuming that these seating positions were equipped with safety belts, the installation of "safety bar" in small school buses would be a voluntary action on the part of the school bus manufacturer. NHTSA has said in several prior interpretation letters that the systems or components installed in addition to required safety systems are not required to meet Federal safety standards, provided that the additional components or systems do not destroy the ability of required systems (the safety belts in this case) to comply with the Federal safety standards. If this is the case, the "safety bar" could be provided as a supplement to safety belts on small school buses.

To install these "safety bars" in any new school bus, the manufacturer would have to certify that a bus with the "safety bars" installed complied with the impact zone requirements set forth in S5.3 of Standard No. 222. Thus, if any part of the "safety b ar" was within the head protection zone or leg protection zone, the "safety bar" would have to be certified as complying with the applicable requirements of S5.3. Additionally, the manufacturer would have to certify that the school buses with these "saf ety bars" installed complied with Standard No. 217, Bus Window Retention and Release (49 CFR @ 571.217). Standard No. 217 requires school buses to be equipped with emergency exits of a minimum size. This means the "safety bars" could not obstruct emerg ency exits located adjacent to seats.

If you decide to manufacture these "safety bar," your company will be 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.). As such, you will have several responsibili ties, including the responsibility specified in sections 151-159 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419) to conduct a notification and remedy campaign if your company or the agency determines either that the safety bar contains a defect

related to motor vehicle safety or that it does not comply with an applicable safety standard. A copy of an information sheet is enclosed, which describes briefly this and other statutory and regulatory responsibilities of manufacturers and explains how to obtain copies of our regulations.

Please let me know if you have any further questions or need additional information.

Sincerely,

ENCLOSURE

ID: nht88-3.69

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 10/14/88

FROM: ERIKA Z. JONES -- NHTSA

TO: N. BOWYER -- SENIOR ENGINEER HOMOLOGATION AND LEGISLATION LAND ROVER UK LIMITED

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: UNDATED LETTER FROM N. BOWYER TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1909; LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM D. BRUCE HENDERSON TO OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC-1908

TEXT: Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR @571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR @571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 199 1. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that t he labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that al so comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This secti on contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicl e. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehic le combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of S tandard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898 , at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for t hese dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those bel t systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly

true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which i t would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of St andard No. 209.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our re view of it.

ID: 86-2.35

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/23/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Don Black

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office Alfa Romeo, Inc. 250 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632

Dear Mr. Black:

This responds to your letter to Mr. Barry Felrice, our Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, requesting an interpretation of Part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. Specifically, you stated that Alfa Romeo plans to label its front and rear bumpers in the following locations. The front bumper would have a label attached to the bumper assembly in the area where it would not be visible if a front license plate was attached to the bumper. The rear bumper would have a label attached to the rear bumper in an area that will be covered by a plastic snap-in molding. This molding must be removed to remove the rear bumper from the vehicle. You asked whether these planned locations would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii) that the labels be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle." It is NHTSA's opinion that the locations specified for marking bumpers in your letter would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(1)(iii).

Your planned location for labeling the front bumpers is in an area where those labels will be visible at the time the cars arrive at the dealer and will remain visible unless and until a front license plate is installed on the car. NHTSA must thus determine whether the possible need to remove a front license plate would result in labels in this location failing to satisfy the requirement that labels be placed so that they will be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle." It appears not to be necessary to remove the front license plate in order to remove the front bumper from your vehicles. Hence, one might conclude that such location would not satisfy this requirement.

However, the intent underlying this requirement was clearly set forth in the rulemaking proceeding that established Part 541. The preamble to the notice of proposed rulemaking contained the following sentence: "Both commenters agreed, however, that NHTSA's regulations should ensure that investigators will not have to conduct any additional dismantling (over and above what chop shops, parts dealers, or thieves have ordinarily done) to locate the identifier on parts removed from a vehicle." (Emphasis in original) 50 FR 19731, May 10, 1985. NHTSA believes that license plates are routinely removed from front bumpers by legitimate parts dealers prior to reselling the bumper. Law enforcement groups have assured us that license plates are removed from stolen bumpers, so that the stolen part cannot be traced to its rightful owner. In these circumstances, the agency has no reason to believe that labels for front bumpers that are covered by the front license plate will require investigators to conduct additional dismantling of the front bumpers. Accordingly, we conclude that labels on front bumpers that are clearly visible when the front license plate is removed satisfy the requirement that those labels be "visible without further disassembly once the part has been removed from the vehicle."

With respect to the rear bumpers, the situation is simpler. According to your letter, the plastic molding covering the labels must be removed to remove the bumper from the vehicle. Thus, the label would be visible without further disassembly once the bumper has been removed from the vehicle. As such, it would satisfy the requirement of S541.5(d)(l)(iii).

If you have any further questions or need more information on this subject, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Ref. #027 February 18, 1986

Mr. Barry Felrice Associate Administrator for Rulemaking U.S. Department of Transportation N.H.T.S.A. 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590

RE: Request for Interpretation - Part 531 F.M.V.T.P.S.

Dear Mr. Felrice:

The enclosed sketches depict Alfa Romeo's intended bumper markings.

Sketch "A" - Shows the front bumper assembly. The complete bumper is covered with a semi-rigid plastic to protect it against minor damages. The label is attached to the actual bumper which is an aluminum extrusion. The label is visible following vehicle manufacture and at any time the front plate is not installed. These are two obvious cases where no front plate is used:

a) In states where only a rear plate is used.

b) On stolen vehicles, where the plates are removed.

Sketch "B" - Is a cross section of the bumper itself, an aluminum extrusion. This is to be considered the permanent part of the bumper assembly, while the semi-rigid decorative/protective cover mentioned above is considered a "wear" or "aesthetic" part subject to replacement.

Sketch "C" - Depicts the rear bumper, also an aluminum extrusion covered by a semi-rigid facing as used on the front bumper. The label is located in a groove in the facing where the aluminum extrusion is exposed adjacent to the mounting bolts for the bumper structural extrusion.

Ref. #027 Mr. Barry Felrice N.H.T.S.A. February 18, 1986 Page two

The label and the bumper bolts are covered by a small plastic snap-in moulding. To remove the bumper, the moulding must be removed followed by removal of the bumper bolts. It is worthy to note that with this design there is no location on which to place a label on a permanent part of the bumper since it is covered by the semi-rigid facing, which is again a "disposable" part of the bumper assembly.

Sketch "D" - Is a vertical view of the horizontal section carrying the label. Here the snap-in moulding can be seen covering the bumper bolts.

Alfa Romeo's opinion is that, considering the bumper design, these locations meet the requirements of "VISIBILITY" for the actual bumper since the facing itself would not likely be a theft target. We hope that N.H.T.S.A. will concur with Alfa Romeo's choice of location.

Respectfully,

ALFA ROMEO, INC.

Don Black Director, U.S. Engineering Office

DB/as

Enclosure

cc: B. McLauglin - N.H.T.S.A. Fogliata - Dires Sego Guelfi - Tires Carr Francioni - Marketing Prodotto M. Kole - ARI T. Tooley - ARI

ID: 21492volvotension

William Shapiro, P.E.
Director, Regulatory Compliance and Environmental Affairs
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, NJ 07647-0913





Dear Mr. Shapiro:

This responds to your letter asking about a certain aspect of the dynamic test procedure of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems, as applied to a new add-on rear-facing child restraint system that Volvo has developed. Your question relates to a movable surface, a "tension bracket," on the child restraint system that a consumer installing the child restraint would adjust. The tension bracket would increase the tension of the vehicle belt system that attaches the child restraint to the vehicle seat. You ask whether we would deploy the tension bracket in our compliance test of Standard No. 213. Our answer is no.

Background
You explain that the child restraint system ("CRS") is designed in both an infant-only configuration (for children with a mass of up to 10 kilograms (kg)), and a "toddler" configuration (children in the range of 9 to 18 kg). You state that both configurations use a base, or frame, that attaches to the vehicle seat by way of the vehicle belt system and by components that attach to the lower bars of a child restraint anchorage system (see FMVSS No. 225, 49 CFR 571.225).

Your inquiry relates to attaching the child restraint system by way of the vehicle belt system. Volvo designed a tension bracket for this means of attachment, described by you as: "an inverted "U"-shaped surface, attached near the edge of the CRS base or CRS frame (the edge of the CRS which is closest to the vehicle's seat bight)." When the tension bracket is deployed, it "increases tension on the vehicle's belt system, enhancing the coupling of the CRS to the vehicle seat...."

Section 6.1.2(d)(ii) of Standard No. 213 specifies that, when a child restraint is tested on the standard seat assembly when attached by a Type I (lap belt), the belt is tightened to a tension of not less than 53.5 Newtons (N) and not more than 67 N. Volvo believes that the dynamic test should be conducted by "first, routing the standard vehicle lap belt through the CRS belt path/guide, second, adjusting the belt tension to be in the range of 53.5-67 N, and then third, pushing the tension bracket ("U"-shaped surface) against the vehicle seat back by pushing the handle at the top of the tension bracket and the padded top crossbar of the CRS frame apart." Deploying the tension bracket in the sequence will increase the belt tension above 67 N.

You believe that the dynamic test procedure (S6.1.2) of Standard No. 213 permits the deployment of the tension bracket and the resultant increase in belt tension (above 67 N) because S6.1.2 specifies that the add-on child restraint system is installed at the center seating position of the seat assembly "in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions provided with the system." You state that your instructions tell the consumer to (a) "tighten the lap belt fully" while pressing the base into the seat cushion, then (b) deploy the tension bracket. You therefore believe that the dynamic test should be conducted with the tension bracket deployed, since deploying it would be in accordance with your instructions.

Discussion
We do not agree that, for purposes of conducting the dynamic tests in Standard No. 213, the tension bracket should be deployed after the lap belt has been adjusted to 53.5 to 67 N.

The dynamic test procedures of Standard No. 213 are carefully controlled to ensure that all child restraints are tested in the same manner, under identical conditions. Section 6.1.2(d)(ii) of Standard No. 213 specifies the amount of tension that must be on the lap belt (not less than 53.5 N to not more than 67 N) to control the means of attaching each child restraint, thereby reducing variability, and to better assess the performance of the restraint. Under the test procedures of the standard, the tension of the lap belt is checked and controlled immediately before the dynamic test. (See S6.1.2(d)(ii) and S6.1.2(e).) Contrary to your suggestion, we do not subsequently adjust the child restraint to make sure that various features of the restraint that may have been added by the manufacturer are deployed.

Further, specifying the amount of tension that is in the lap belt helps ensure that all child restraints can provide a minimum level of safety when attached in a standardized manner. In our view, no child restraint can be tested with more than the specified 67 N of tension, since that would make the test less stringent. We note that the child restraint requires action on the part of the consumer to increase the belt tension. It does not do so automatically. If the tension adjustment in the seat operated automatically, such that it was impossible to install the seat at a tension below 67 N, we would test at the higher tension.

With your child restraint system, the benefits from the increased tension of the vehicle belt will not be realized by consumers who neglect to deploy the tension bracket or who do so incorrectly. The possibility of the tension bracket not being used is not insignificant, since child restraints do not generally use a tension bracket. The attachment of child restraints to vehicle seats is intended to be standardized. Thus, child restraints must meet the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 213 regardless of whether a tension bracket is deployed, to guard against a degradation of safety in cases where the bracket is misused.

Accordingly, we conclude that child restraints must meet the minimum performance requirements of Standard No. 213 when the lap belt has a tension of not more than 67 N. We realize that your feature can tension a vehicle belt further and that the removal of slack in the belt system is generally beneficial to child restraint performance. However, our conclusion ensures that child restraints provide a minimum level of safety even when features that are supplemental to the standard means of attaching a child restraint are not used as intended.

If you have any further questions, please contact Deirdre Fujita of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel

ref:213
d.10/17/00

ID: 6983r

Mr. John Faist
DAS Fleet Services Division
City of Seattle
8618 2d Avenue, 12th Floor
Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Mr. Faist:

This responds to the letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from Chris Kuczynski, Fleet Services Division, City of Seattle Department of Administrative Services, dated February 4, 1992, asking how the provisions of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 pertained to "a municipal government agency that transfers, modifies and/or fabricates custom vehicle bodies for use by it's own departments." In a telephone conversation with Walter Myers of this office on April 3, 1992, you stated that the vehicle modifications referred to in the letter involve only trucks, both light and heavy; that you combine both new and used bodies with both new and used chassis, endeavoring to retain the old engines, power axles, and transmissions to the extent possible; that such modifications include mounting equipment on truck chassis to create such specific-purpose vehicles as dump trucks, cranes, and the like; that some of such modifications and fabrications are done in your own shops while others are contracted out to local body shops; and that passenger cars and buses are not involved.

Before addressing the specific issues raised in the letter, some background information may be helpful. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, 15 U. S. Code, 1381 - 1431 (hereinafter "Safety Act") authorizes this agency to establish Federal motor vehicle safety standards for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve or disapprove motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Rather, the Safety Act establishes a self-certification process which requires each manufacturer, in the exercise of due care, to ensure and certify that its products meet all applicable Federal safety standards. Thereafter, NHTSA will periodically test vehicles and equipment for compliance with the standards and investigate allegations of safety-related defects.

Turning now to the modifications to your trucks, we start first with the provisions of 49 CFR, Part 571.7(e), Combining new and used components, which provides in pertinent part:

When a new cab is used in the assembly of a truck, the truck will be considered newly manufactured . . . unless the engine, transmission, and drive axle(s) (as a minimum) of the assembled vehicle are not new, and at least two of these components were taken from the same vehicle.

NHTSA has consistently interpreted that provision to mean that, by its terms, it applies only to new bodies and not to old ones, and that placing a new body on an old chassis does not produce a new vehicle so long as the engine, transmission, and drive axles, as a minimum, are not new and at least two of which were taken from the same vehicle. Conversely, a new vehicle would result by placing a new body on an old chassis utilizing new, a combination of new and used, or used engine, transmission, and drive axles no two of which were taken from the same vehicle.

A new vehicle would also result by placing a body, new or used, on a new chassis. In that case the new chassis is an incomplete vehicle which is defined at 49 CFR, Part 568.3 as:

[A]n assemblage consisting, as a minimum, of frame and chassis structure, power train, steering system, suspension system, and braking system, to the extent that those systems are to be part of the completed vehicle, that requires further manufacturing operations, other than the addition of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or tire and rim assemblies, or minor finishing operations such as painting, to become a completed vehicle.

By adding a body to the new chassis, you, the City of Seattle, become a final-stage manufacturer, defined in Part 568.3 as ". . . [A] person who performs such manufacturing operations on an incomplete vehicle that it becomes a completed vehicle." As such, you are required by Part 568.6(a) to ". . . [C]omplete the vehicle in such a manner that it conforms to the standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the incomplete vehicle, . . . ." Part 568.6(b) then requires that "Each final-stage manufacturer shall affix a label to the completed vehicle in accordance with 567.5 of this chapter." For your additional information I am enclosing a NHTSA fact sheet entitled INFORMATION FOR NEW MANUFACTURERS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND MOTOR VEHICLE EQUIPMENT. To summarize, placing a new body on a used chassis does not make a new vehicle if, as a minimum, the engine, transmission, and drive axles are not new and if at least two of those components were taken from the same vehicle. A new chassis, however, is an incomplete vehicle and placing a body thereon, whether new or old, results in a new vehicle which must comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards in effect on the date of manufacture of the new chassis, and the final-stage manufacturer who completes the assembly of the vehicle must comply with the certification requirements of 49 CFR, Part 567. Accordingly, in response to your question about the applicability of 49 CFR, Parts 554-557, 565-568, 571, 573, 576, 577, and 579 to your truck customization program, the answer is that if you create a new vehicle, all those provisions apply. If you do not create a new vehicle, none of them do. This is true whatever procedures/steps you choose to utilize in accomplishing your vehicle customization program.

One final matter should be discussed before concluding. Section 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act prohibits manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses from rendering inoperative any safety device or element of design installed on or in a complying vehicle. That restriction does not apply to private owners, which would include municipalities, who are free to modify their vehicles without regard to whether the vehicles so modified comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Such restriction would apply, however, to those local body/repair shops to which you contract out some of your customization work. Accordingly, those businesses would have to be very careful to leave intact all the safety devices and features that are on the vehicles that they work on for you.

I hope the above information is responsive to your inquiry and will be of assistance to you. If you have any further questions with regard to this matter, please feel free to contact Walter Myers of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Enclosure Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:571 d:5/19/92

ID: 7145

Mr. Tm Kozy
Marketing Director
InfiniMed
2105 S. Hardy Dr., Ste. 5
Tempe, AZ 85282-1990

Dear Mr. Kozy:

This responds to your March 24, 1992 letter concerning "adaptive aids (hand controls) in cars equipped with air bags." I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain our regulations to you. Your two questions and the response to each follows.

1. Is it illegal to install a hand control unit that is drilled into the steering column that, according to the bulletin issued by Chrysler Corporation referring to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, voids the warranty on the air bag as it may render the system inoperative.

To the extent you are seeking information about warranty claims, NHTSA has no authority to regulate those issues. Therefore, I cannot comment on the effect installation of hand controls might have on a warranty. The only Federal agency that has authority to regulate questions relating to warranties in general is the Federal Trade Commission. If you wish to contact that agency for further information regarding warranty questions, you may write to: Mr. Barry J. Cutler, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.

I will, however, discuss the implications of the laws and regulations administered by this agency on the installation of hand controls in motor vehicles. Section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act; 15 U.S.C. 1392) authorizes NHTSA to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products meet all applicable safety standards. NHTSA periodically tests certified products to ensure that they do, in fact, comply with applicable standards, and investigates allegations that products contain defects related to motor vehicle safety.

If a new vehicle were altered by installation of adaptive controls prior to the vehicle's first sale to a consumer, the person making the installation would be considered an "alterer" and would be required by 49 CFR Part 567, Certification, to certify that the vehicle continues to comply with all applicable safety standards affected by the alteration. With respect to the installation of adaptive controls at a driver's position equipped with an air bag, the party making such an installation would be obliged to certify that the air bag is capable of functioning at least as well with the adaptive control installed as it functioned before the installation.

After the first sale to a consumer, a vehicle is no longer required by Federal law to conform to all safety standards, and persons modifying the vehicle are no longer required to attach certification labels. However, 108(a)(2)(A) of the Safety Act provides as follows:

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...

This provision obliges any manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or repair business that installs adaptive controls in vehicles equipped with air bags at the driver's position to ensure that such installation does not "render inoperative," or interfere with, the protection afforded the driver by the air bag. Violations of this "render inoperative" prohibition in the Safety Act are punishable by civil fines of up to $1,000 per violation. I note that 108(a)(2)(A) does not affect modifications made by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

Finally, under the Safety Act, adaptive controls would be considered items of motor vehicle equipment. There are currently no Federal motor vehicle safety standards that apply to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment. However, although no safety standards apply directly to adaptive controls as a separate item of motor vehicle equipment, manufacturers of adaptive controls are subject to the requirements in 151-159 of the Safety Act concerning the recall and remedy of products with safety defects. In the event that NHTSA or a manufacturer determines that a manufacturer's product contains a safety- related defect, the manufacturer is responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective equipment and remedying the problem free of charge.

2. I need to know if such a unit were installed on an air bag equipped vehicle, and that same vehicle is resold in, say a year or two, is the seller required by law to notify the next buyer that the warranty on the air bag system has been voided, even though the controls may now have been removed.

At the outset, I must again note that this agency has no authority over warranty issues or alleged unfair trade practices. Any such questions should be addressed to the Federal Trade Commission at the address given above. My answer is limited to obligations imposed by the Safety Act and the standards and regulations issued by this agency pursuant to that Act.

The "render inoperative" provision of the Safety Act does not impose an affirmative duty on dealers to replace equipment that was previously removed by someone else, or to repair equipment that was damaged in a crash. Thus, the "render inoperative" provision does not require a dealer to replace an air bag that does not function because of something that happened before the dealer took possession of the vehicle, including the installation of hand controls. Moreover, nothing in the Safety Act imposes a duty on dealers of used vehicles to disclose information to purchasers. Notwithstanding the absence of any such requirements in the Safety Act, a dealer may be required by State law to repair or replace the air bag in these circumstances. For further information on the provisions in various State laws, you may contact: the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

I hope you find this information helpful. If you have further questions or need some additional information in this area, please contact Mary Versailles of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#208 d:5/5/92

ID: 3082o

Mr. N. Bowyer AIR MAIL
Senior Engineer
Homologation and Legislation
Land Rover UK Limited
Lode Lane, Solihull
West Midlands B92 8NW
England
UNITED KINGDOM

Dear Mr. Bowyer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard Nos. 208, Occupant Crash Protection (49 CFR /571.208) and 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR /571.209). I regret the delay in this response.

More specifically, you noted that S4.6.2 of Standard No. 208 requires dynamic testing of manual lap/shoulder belts installed at front outboard seating positions of light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles manufactured on or after September 1, 1991. Section S4.6.3 of Standard No. 208 provides: "A Type 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2 of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a)-(c) and S4.4 of Standard No. 209."

Section S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 provides that: "A seat belt assembly that meets [the dynamic testing requirements] of Standard No. 208 shall be permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement: This dynamically-tested seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g., "front right'] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)]."

You expressed your opinion that dynamically tested belts must be labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 if the belts do not comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209. In these situations, you suggested that the labeling requirements help ensure that the belts will not be installed "into inappropriate vehicles." However, you stated your belief that the labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 do not apply to dynamically-tested manual belts that also comply with all of the requirements of Standard No. 209.

Your understanding of these requirements is incorrect. Section S4.6(b)of Standard No. 209 provides that seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements in Standard No. 208 shall be marked or labeled with certain information. This section contains no exception for seat belt assemblies that meet the dynamic testing requirements and satisfy the performance requirements of Standard No. 209. The reason for not including any such exception was that the agency intended that all dynamically tested manual belts be marked or labeled with the information specified in S4.6(b).

You suggested that there is no reason to require labeling of belt assemblies that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209, just because those belt assemblies also comply with the dynamic testing requirements when installed in a particular vehicle. This assertion would be correct if the protection provided by safety belts depended only on the performance of the safety belts themselves. However, such is not necessarily the case.

We emphatically agree with you that a belt assembly that complies with all requirements of Standard No. 209 will provide very substantial protection to an occupant of any vehicle in a crash. However, the protection provided by safety belts to occupants of a particular vehicle depends on more than the performance of the belts themselves; it also depends on the structural characteristics and interior design of the vehicle. The dynamic testing requirements measure the performance of the safety belt/vehicle combination, while Standard No. 209 focuses on measuring the performance of the safety belts alone. See 52 FR 44899-44900; November 23, 1987.

With the advent of dynamic testing for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, NHTSA explained why Standard No. 209 was amended to require labeling of dynamically tested belts, regardless of whether those belts comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209. The final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles explained that NHTSA was adopting the same belt labeling requirements previously adopted for passenger car belts. 52 FR 44898, at 44907; November 23, 1987. In the preamble to the final rule establishing dynamic testing requirements for passenger cars with manual belts at front outboard seating positions, NHTSA explained why it was establishing belt labeling requirements for these dynamically tested safety belts. The agency said:

NHTSA believes that care must be taken to distinguish dynamically tested belt systems from other systems, since misapplication of a belt in a vehicle designed for use with a specific dynamically tested belt could pose a risk of injury. If there is a label on the belt itself, a person making the installation will be aware that the belt should be installed only in certain vehicles. 51 FR 9800, at 9804; March 21, 1986.

The same concerns apply to dynamically tested belts for light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Even if Land Rover installs dynamically tested belt systems that comply with all requirements of Standard No. 209 in all of its vehicles, those belt systems might not be appropriate for use in other light multipurpose passenger vehicles. This is particularly true if other light multipurpose passenger vehicles are designed for use only with specific dynamically tested belt systems different from the Land Rover belt system. The chances of the Land Rover belt system being installed in a vehicle for which it would not be appropriate are minimized if there is a label on the belt system indicating that it should be installed only in specific seating positions in Land Rover models and any other vehicles for which the belt system is appropriate. Accordingly, the belt labeling requirements in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 apply to all dynamically tested belts for use in light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, regardless of whether those dynamically tested belts comply with all other requirements of Standard No. 209.

You asked that we treat your request for an interpretation as a petition for rulemaking if, as we have done, we concluded that your suggested interpretation was incorrect. We will notify you of our response to this petition as soon as we complete our review of it.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

cc: Mr. D. Bruce Henderson Legislative Programs Manager Range Rover of North America 4390 Parliament Place P.O. Box 1503 Lanham, MD 20706

/ref:208#209 d:l0/l4/88

ID: nht79-3.42

DATE: 12/31/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: American Motors Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your recent letter requesting an interpretation of the warning system requirements for seat belts in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208. The buckles of driver lap belts in all AMC vehicles and most Jeep vehicles are equipped with switches that prevent the audible belt use warning system from operating when the driver turns the ignition on after having fastened his or her lap belt. You ask whether the standard allows removal of the switch and associated wiring. The effect of this step, which would result in a savings of about $ 1.50 per vehicle, would be that the warning would operate regardless of whether the driver has fastened his or her lap belt. You also ask that your letter be considered a petition for rulemaking if this removal is not permissible.

Paragraph S7.3 of the standard requires a seat belt warning system that activates a 4 to 8-second warning light when the vehicle's ignition switch is moved to the "on" or "start" position (condition "a"), and a 4 to 8-second audible signal when condition "a" exists and the driver's lap belt is not fastened (condition "b"). Under your proposal, the audible signal would be activated when both conditions exist. However, it would also be activated when condition "a" alone exists.

The functioning of the audible signal when condition "a" only exists is not permissible under the standard. The rulemaking notices which led to adoption of the current requirement stated that the agency's intent was that the audible signal operate if the driver's lap belt is not in use. The agency expressed that same intent in the standard by specifying the light was to function when condition "a" existed and the audible signal when both conditions "a" and "b" existed. To interpret the standard to permit the signal to operate when condition "a" only existed would be to render purposeless the specification of condition "b".

Further, the agency denies your petition to amend FMVSS 208 to permit operation of the audible signal when condition "a" only exists. A greater limitation was placed on the operation of the audible warning signal in consideration of the irritation factor associated with the signal but not with the light. To provide a reminder and incentive for safety belt use and to avoid subjecting the conscientious belt user to having to hear an audible reminder to do something that he or she has already done, the agency specified that the signal would not function if the driver's safety belt were fastened.

In light of studies concerning the value of a properly designed belt use warning system in improving the rate of belt use, the agency is contemplating including a proposal to amend the FMVSS 208 warning requirements when it issues its forthcoming notice of proposed rulemaking on seat belt comfort and convenience. We would welcome your views on the proposal following its announcement.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

November 19, 1979

Joan B. Claybrook -- Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

Dear Ms. Claybrook:

This office is evaluating the feasibility and legal implications of a proposed product improvement. We are considering removing the driver's lap-belt buckle switch and associated wiring harness from the seat belt use reminder system currently installed on all AMC and most Jeep vehicles. We believe that eliminating this buckle switch would not detract from the effectiveness of the reminder system.

The lap-belt buckle switch functions to deactivate the audible signal when the driver's restraint system is fastened. We are of the opinion that the effect of its removal would be consistent with the law as stipulated in paragraph S7.3 of 49CFR571.208 and section 125 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended.

Additional support for our opinion that the audible signal need not be belt-use sensitive apparently can be found in the preamble to Docket 74-39; Notice 3, the final amendment to FMVSS 208 which adopted the new reminder system requirements. In that notice, the NHTSA noted that its initial proposal had intended that the audible warning should be dependent on belt use, but that after consideration of comments received, the Agency determined that "Because of the limited benefit, the reminder should be provided at as low a cost as feasible." Therefore, the NHTSA "determined that an audible-visual combination will provide the best reminder at a cost commensurate with the benefits achievable in a limited-duration signal."

The removal of the lap-belt buckle switch would be consistent with these stated objectives. The achievable associated cost reduction is estimated to be approximately $ 1.50/vehicle, and because many, if not all, U.S.-marketed cars use designs with a similar buckle switch, an industry-wide potential savings of $ 15 million per year appears reasonable.

The resultant belt use reminder system would operate the same as today except that both the light and buzzer would activate for 4 to 8 seconds each time the ignition is turned on regardless whether the driver's belt is fastened. Such a system would not likely be judged unacceptable by the motoring public because we believe that the majority of belt users "buckle up" during the time that the reminder system is activated by the operation of the ignition switch. Therefore, the termination of the audible-visual signal would be essentially coincident with the occupant's fastening of the restraint system.

We ask for your prompt concurrence that such a reminder system would be consistent with Federal requirements. The timeliness of your response is important as the potential product savings and consumer price benefits could be realized almost immediately. Because this is a component deletion that does not require design or tooling time, we could implement this change soon after we receive a favorable response.

If you determine that our interpretation of the belt-use reminder system requirements is not correct, we ask that this request be considered as a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 208 such that the audible signal may be, but is not required to be, driver belt-use dependent.

Sincerely,

K. W. Schang Director - Vehicle Safety Programs -- AMERICAN MOTORS CORPORATION