ID: 10723-2

Ms. Merridy R. Gottlieb
4 Duchess Court
Baltimore, MD 21237

Dear Ms. Gottlieb:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995, requesting an "exemption" from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states:

I am disabled and need 3-4" of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all.

You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would "interfere with the functionality of the air bag."

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles without obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowances to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should provide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safety standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applicable FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standard No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic safety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would "make inoperative" the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the dynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modifier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the safety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

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

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:VSA#207#208 d:4/25/95

ID: nht95-2.51

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: April 25, 1995

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Merridy R. Gottlieb

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO 2/14/95 LETTER FROM MERRIDY R. GOTTLIEB TO MARY VERSAILLES (OCC 10723)

TEXT: Dear Ms. Gottlieb:

This responds to your letter of February 14, 1995, requesting an "exemption" from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to allow a business to modify your motor vehicle. Your letter states:

I am disabled and need 3-4" of additional room for the passenger seat to allow my legs to straighten on long trips. I have two replaced hips and arthritis in my knees. If I leave my legs slightly bent for long periods of time, I suffer too much pain to be active at the end of the drive. By allowing my legs to straighten all the way out, there is no pain at all.

You state that you were told that this modification cannot be done as it would "interfere with the functionality of the air bag."

In summary, our answer is that you may have your vehicle modified. NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition. A more detailed answer to your letter is provided below.

I would like to begin by clarifying that there is no procedure by which persons petition for and are granted an exemption from NHTSA to have a motor vehicle repair business modify their motor vehicle. Repair businesses are permitted to modify vehicles w ithout obtaining permission from NHTSA to do so, but are subject to certain regulatory limits on the type of modifications they may make. In certain limited situations, we have exercised our discretion in enforcing our requirements to provide some allowa nces to a repair business which cannot conform to our requirements when making modifications to accommodate the special needs of persons with disabilities. Since your situation is among those given special consideration by NHTSA, this letter should prov ide you with the relief you seek.

Our agency is authorized to issue Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that set performance requirements for new motor vehicles and items of motor vehicle equipment. Manufacturers are required to certify that their products conform to our safe ty standards before they can be offered for sale. Manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and repair businesses are prohibited from "knowingly making inoperative" any device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle in compliance with an appl icable FMVSS. In general, the "make inoperative" prohibition would require repair businesses which modify motor vehicles to ensure that they do not remove, disconnect, or degrade the performance of safety equipment installed in compliance with an applic able FMVSS. Violations of this prohibition are punishable by civil fines up to $ 1,000 per violation.

Moving a seat could affect compliance with Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. Standard No. 208 sets forth requirements for occupant protection at the various seating positions in a vehicles. Standard No. 208 requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. Automatic crash protection systems protect their occupants by means that require no action by vehicle occupants. Compliance with the automatic crash protection requirements of Standar d No. 208 is determined in a dynamic crash test. That is, a vehicle must comply with specified injury criteria, as measured on a test dummy, in a 30 mph barrier crash test. The two types of automatic crash protection currently offered are automatic saf ety belts (which help to assure belt use) and air bags (which supplement safety belts and offer some protection even when safety belts are not used).

Based on the information in your letter, it appears that the manufacturer of your vehicle installed air bags as the means of complying with Standard No. 208's requirement. Your modifier is concerned that the modification of the seat would "make inoperat ive" the air bag. I would like to note that accident data would suggest that a person is at greater risk of injury from an air bag from sitting too close to the air bag, rather than further away from the air bag. However, I understand that, due to the d ynamic testing requirement, the modifier will be unable to ensure that the vehicle continues to comply with Standard No. 208's requirements.

In situations such as yours where a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a particular disability, we have been willing to consider any violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition a purely technical one justified by public need. As I have already noted above, NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that modifies the seat on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

We caution, however, that only necessary modifications should be made to the seat, and the person making the modifications should consider the possible safety consequences of the modifications. For example, in moving a seat, it is critical that the modi fier ensure that the seat is solidly anchored in its new location. You should also be aware that an occupant of a seat which has been moved rearward may have less protection in a crash if the seat is too far rearward relative to the anchorages of the sa fety belts for that seat. Finally, if you sell your vehicle, we encourage you to advise the purchaser of the modifications.

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

ID: 12975-1.pja

Dana Schuman
1443 Revelation Road
Meadowbrook, PA 19046

e-mail: CloonCraze@aol.com

Via e-mail and mail

Dear Dana Schuman:

This responds to your October 27, 1996 e-mail to President Clinton enquiring about where you could get information about writing a bill to require seat belts on school buses. Your inquiry was referred to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) because this agency is authorized to develop motor vehicle safety standards applicable to all new motor vehicles, including school buses.

Before referring you to sources of information on school bus seat belt legislation, I will briefly review this agency's existing belt installation requirements for school buses and the rationale behind them. Small school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight rating under 10,000 pounds, must be equipped with lap or lap/shoulder belts at all designated seating positions. For larger school buses, our requirements only specify that a safety belt must be installed for the bus driver. Note that NHTSA regulates only belt installation. Belt use regulation is left to the States.

We have not required large school buses to have safety belts for passengers because we have not found sufficient justification for such a requirement, given that these buses have excellent safety records. This safety record arises in part from the fact that, in crashes with other vehicles, buses tend to be substantially heavier than the other vehicle. As a result, the crash forces experienced by bus occupants tend to be less than those experienced by car occupants. Also, because of the elevated seating positions in large buses, bus occupants sit above the area typically damaged in a collision with another vehicle. Since the size and weight of small school buses are closer to those of passenger cars and trucks, the agency believes seat belts in those vehicles are necessary to provide occupant protection.

Larger school buses have a protection system so that children are protected without the need to buckle-up. Our regulations require large school buses to use a concept called "compartmentalization," which protects occupants by a protective envelope consisting of strong, closely-spaced seats that have energy-absorbing seat backs. The effectiveness of compartmentalization has been confirmed in studies by the National Transportation Safety Board and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

Although large school buses are not required by Federal law to have passenger safety belts, NHTSA does not prevent States and local jurisdictions from requiring safety belts on their own large buses. If you are considering drafting such legislation, we urge you to include provisions designed to promote proper belt use. The NAS report states that if seat belts are to be beneficial, "states and local school districts that require seat belts on school buses must ensure not only that all school bus passengers wear the belts, but that they wear them correctly."

Since no Federal legislation requiring seat belts on school buses has been introduced, the best sources of information are in the two States that have such requirements, New York and New Jersey. We suggest you contact one of the following people:

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions about NHTSA's safety standards, please feel free to contact Paul Atelsek of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack

Acting Chief Counsel

ref:208

d:12/4/96

ID: nht91-4.26

DATE: June 20, 1991

FROM: Brett Reed -- Design Engineer, Morse Controls, Inc.

TO: Office of the Chief Counsel, NHTSA

COPYEE: R. Breitenstein; A. Paynter; F. Witt

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-16-91 from Paul Jackson Rice to Brett Reed (A38; Std. 102)

TEXT:

Morse Controls requests that your office issue an interpretation of Motor Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 102 and its application to electronic transmission shift controls. Specifically, as it relates to controls that operate automatic transmissions used in heavy duty trucks and RV's and on solenoid operated powershift transmissions used in various on and off highway vehicles.

Section S3.1.3 of this standard reads as follows:

S3.1.3 Starter Interlock - The engine starter shall be inoperative when the transmission shift lever is in a forward or reverse drive position.

Is the intent of this standard to render the engine starter inoperative when the transmission is in a forward or reverse drive gear or when the shift lever, the driver's interface to the transmission, is in such a gear? It would seem that the real thrust of this standard would be to inhibit the operation of the engine starter when the transmission is in a drive gear, thus avoiding the obvious safety hazards. The position of the shift lever, the driver's interface to the transmission, may well be dismissed in certain operational scenarios, provided this prime safety consideration has been met.

At the time this specification was written, transmissions were generally controlled by mechanical linkages or cables that were directly connected to the shift lever. Thus, the shift lever (the human interface) always matched the gear that the transmission was in. With the introduction of electronic shift systems and fully electronic transmissions, the connection between the shift lever and the transmission is rarely performed by direct mechanical means. This raises the possibility that the shift lever position may not match the gear currently engaged by the transmission in situations where the transmission control circuitry overrides the shift lever selection in the interest of safety, transmission protection or other criteria related to specific applications.

Such systems do require that the transmission be in neutral before enabling the operation of the engine starter, in accordance with the perceived intent of MVSS No. 102.

Any attempt to artificially match the electronic shift lever's position to the gear currently engaged by the transmission in such override situations not only burdens the shift lever with considerable cost and complexity, but also raises safety and reliability concerns. Similarly, requiring the

shift lever to be moved to neutral when the transmission itself is already in neutral due to some override condition imposes unnecessary safety hazards in some applications. The interests of public safety will be best served by requiring that the engine starter be inoperative when the transmission itself, not the transmission shift lever, is in a forward or reverse drive gear.

We, therefore, respectfully request that you review this matter and render an interpretation of the intent of this standard. Feel free to contact us for clarification of any points we have raised. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.

ID: 3268yy

Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef, Esq.
General Motors Corporation
Legal Staff
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
P.O. Box 33122
Detroit, MI 48232

Dear Ms. Nowak-Vanderhoef:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR 571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term "dynamically-tested" in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so.

Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be 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)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term "dynamically-tested" from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term "dynamically-tested" on its labels.

NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose." See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information.

Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as "dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies," instead of "seat belt assemblies." We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term "dynamically-tested," would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose. Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992.

Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

/ref:209 d:12/20/91

ID: nht91-7.50

DATE: December 20, 1991

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef, Esq. -- General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 12-2-91 from Deborah K. Nowak-Vanderhoef to Paul Jackson Rice (OCC 6728)

TEXT:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Standard No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR S571.209). Specifically, you asked if General Motors Corporation (GM) could include the term "dynamically-tested" in the label required by S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209. The answer is that GM may do so.

Prior to September 1, 1992, S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 requires a dynamically tested manual belt to be 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)). However, a November 4, 1991 final rule, published at 56 FR 56323, amended S4.6(b) by deleting the term "dynamically-tested" from the required label, effective September 1, 1992. GM would like to continue to include the term "dynamically-tested" on its labels.

NHTSA has often addressed the issue of whether additional information may be provided along with information that is required to be labeled on the product in the context of our safety standards that apply to tires. NHTSA has consistently stated that additional information may be included on tires, provided that the additional information "does not obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information, or otherwise defeat its purpose." See, e.g., our May 31, 1988 letter to Mr. Garry Gallagher of Metzeler Motorcycle Tire. This is the same test we would apply in any of our safety standards for additional information that is provided along with required labeling information.

Applying this test to the situation at hand, the purpose of the labeling requirements in Standard No. 209 is to minimize the likelihood of improper installations of dynamically-tested manual belts, by specifying the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed. GM's proposed labels would provide the information about the particular vehicles and seating positions in which the belts are designed to be installed on the label of these belts. The only difference between GM's proposed labels and the exact language specified in S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 would be that GM's proposed labels would describe the belts as "dynamically-tested seat belt assemblies," instead of "seat belt assemblies." We do not see how this additional description of the belts, which is accurate and consistent with the agency's use of the term "dynamically-tested," would obscure or confuse the meaning of the required information or otherwise defeat its purpose.

Therefore, GM's proposed labeling would be permitted under the provisions

of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 that take effect September 1, 1992.

Enclosed with your letter was a petition for reconsideration that you asked be considered if the agency determined that the current language of S4.6(b) of Standard No. 209 prohibited the additional information to be provided on the GM labels. Since NHTSA has concluded that Standard No. 209 permits the additional information, we are disregarding that petition for reconsideration and will take no action on it.

ID: nht71-1.4

DATE: 01/01/71 EST.

FROM: Robert L. Carter; NHTSA

TO: JEEP Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: On June 16, 1971, you and Mr. William Fleming of American Motors met with representatives of NHTSA and pointed out that the March 4, 1971, revisions of Standard No. 210 (36 F.R. 4291) had created a situation where seat belt anchorages for side-facing seats of multipurpose passenger vehicles would have to meet strength requirements only for the six-month period from July 1, 1971, to January 1, 1972. This occurred because the March 4 notice, which basically extended the existing standard for passenger cars to other types of vehicles as of July 1, 1972, did not have the exemption for side-facing seat belt anchorages that is contained in the revised standard that goes into effect on January 1, 1972.

The failure to exempt side-facing seats from the anchorage test requirements for the six-month period ending January 1, 1972, was inadvertent. A Federal Register notice will be issued shortly amending Standard No. 210 to correct this discrepancy. I am sending you this letter, which will be placed in the public files, in advance of the notice as an extraordinary procedure in light of the time period involved, to confirm that your vehicles need not meet the strength requirements for seat belt anchorages for side-facing seats apparently contained in Standard No. 210.

ID: aiam3772

Dear Mr. Mayer: This is in response to your letter of October 13, 983, to Nelso Erickson of this agency, requesting our interpretation of certain requirements in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 118, *Power-Operated Window Systems*.; A recent amendment to section 3(d) of FMVSS 118 (48 Fed. Reg. 46793 October 14, 1983, copy enclosed) permits power window operation during the 'interval between the time the locking device which controls the activation of the vehicle's engine is turned off and the opening of either of a two-door vehicle's doors or, in the case of a vehicle with more than two doors, the opening of either of its front doors.' As you point out in your recent letter, the opening of the vehicle's front doors would typically be sensed through the interior roof lamp electrical circuit. This circuit would be activaetd when the door is opened 8 to 10 inches from the frame. You ask whether it is permissible under the standard to have power windows remain operable until the door is opened to this point where the roof lamp is activated.; FMVSS 118 is primarily intended to prevent the unsupervised operatio of power windows by children remining in a vehicle. See 48 Fed. Reg. 46793. Paragraph 3(d) was drafted to be consistent with this goal, since it is highly probably that the driver would still be in the vehicle during the specified time interval. Your proposed interpretation is also consistent with the standard's goal, since the driver would not likely be able to leave the vehicle with the door only ajar.; Therefore, we agree that power systems may remain operable unde paragraph 3(d) of FMVSS 118 until the door is opened far enough to permit a small adult to leave the vehicle. The 8 to 10 inch point where the roof lamp is activated appears to be within this permissible range.; Sincerely, Frank Berndt, Chief Counsel

ID: nht78-4.15

DATE: 01/06/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. J. Levin, Jr.; NHTSA

TO: AM General Corporation

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your October 17, 1977, request for confirmation that the brake system of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus to be imported by AM General conforms to S5.1.4, S5.3.3, S5.3.4, S5.4, and S5.6.4 of Standard No. 121, Air Brake Systems. An October 17, 1977, letter from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to Mr. Shillinger of AM General has already answered your question concerning S5.1.2.3 of the standard.

Section 108(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act) (15 U.S.C. @ 1397(a)(1)(A)) requires, among other things, that no person manufacture or sell any motor vehicle manufactured on or after the date any applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standard takes effect unless it is in conformity with such standard. As the manufacturer of AM General Transit buses, I am sure you are aware that this provision makes it impossible for the NHTSA to "approve" the compliance of a brake system in advance of manufacturer of the vehicle because there can be no certainty that the vehicle as manufactured will actually comply.

In response to your statement that the bus must be tested to S5.4, @ 108(b)(2) of the Act provides that @ 108(a)(1)(A) shall not apply to any person who establishes that he did not have reason to know, in the exercise of due care, that a vehicle is not in conformity with an applicable standard. The NHTSA has always interpreted "due care" to mean that a manufacturer is free to use whatever method is reasonably calculated to assure itself that its products, if tested, would conform to the standard's requirements. Thus, dynamo-meter testing of the brakes on each bus would not be necessary if the manufacturer can, in the exercise of due care, assure itself on a reasonable basis, such as engineering calculations, that its products are capable of complying with the standard.

The NHTSA can confirm that S5.3.1 specifies that the tested vehicle be capable of stopping at least once in six stops in the specified stopping distance, within the 12-foot wide roadway, and without lockup of any wheel above 10 mph other than "controlled lockup." Section S5.3.1 specifies "no lockup" performance and can be met by any design, including one which incorporates "load sensing devices" that provide the specified performance.

Section S5.1.4 specifies "[a] pressure gauge in each service brake system . . . that indicates the service reservoir system air pressure." In the case of the M.A.N. articulated transit bus, each of the three service brake circuits must be monitored by a gauge readily visible to the driver. The agency takes no position on the wisdom of deleting pressure gauges that monitor brake chamber air pressure.

Section S5.3.3 and S5.3.4 specify minimum actuation and release times for the service brakes, measuring the time to achieve 60 p.s.i. during actuation and the time to drop from 95 p.s.i. to 5 p.s.i. during release. While these 60- and 95-p.s.i. benchmarks appear in the standard, an interpretation of them has been issued because at least one manufacturer is using a maximum air pressure that is less than the benchmarks. I enclose a copy of the clarification to answer your question.

Your question about S5.6.4 is unclear, but the NHTSA can confirm that the control lever that you showed to the NHTSA appeares to be identified in manner that specifies the method of control operation. As we understand it, the arrow suggesting clockwise rotation of the handle, in conjuction with the word "park", are intended to identify how to apply the parking brake. This interpretation only addresses an arrangement in which parking brake release is the opposite of parking brake application.

SINCERELY,

October 17, 1977 NHTSA Handling & Stability Division

Dear Mr. Perrin:

I am expressing my gratitude for your cooperation and assistance during our meeting on September 8, 1977 with Mr. Scott Shadle, M.A.N. Representatives and Westinghouse Representatives.

The following is a list by paragraph of items of FMVSS #121 discussed: S5.1.2.3 Check Valves - The use of a four-circuit protection valve in lieu of check valves as interpreted, meets the intent of the law. However, the location must be approved by NHTSA. S5.14 Gages - As interpreted, the three individual systems must have an air gage in driver's compartment.

Gages which show actual chamber pressure not required. As agreed, each of the three systems will incorporate a gage in driver's compartment and gages showing actual chamber pressure will be deleted. S5.3.3 Brake Actuation Time - As discussed, the require- ment of 0 to 60 psi in 0.45 seconds has been changed to 0 to 70% of maximum attained pressure (psi) in 0.45 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to actuation time. S5.3.4 Brake Release Time - As discussed, the release time 95-5 psig in 0.55 seconds has been changed

to maximum attainable pressure to 5 psi in 0.55 seconds.

As interpreted, this will allow the use of load sensing brakes and meet the intent of the law with respect to release time. S5.4 Service Brake System - Dynamometer Test Required to be conducted. S5.6.4 Parking Brake Control - This is related to con- figuration which will be used by Seattle-approved.

Discussion on anti-skid versus non-anti-skid:

It was pointed out that the interpretation by NHTSA that driver modulation is permissible, only one of six attempts must meet distance, 12 ft. lane and no-wheel lock up. Further, it was interpreted that load sensing brake system will meet intent of law.

I am anxiously awaiting your Department's letter indicating that the brake and air system on the Articulated Bus as discussed, to the best of your knowledge, meets the intent of FMVSS #121. However, we will ensure that certification testing is in conformance.

AM GENERAL CORPORATION

R. E. Billman Project Engineer

Attachments - 81.52100.8211 Sheet 1 81.52100.8193 Sheet 1 81.51400.8144 Sheet 3 81.99231.8779

ID: 22173

Edward A. Chapleau, Esq.
Chapleau & Kuehl
419 W. Jefferson Blvd.
P.O. Box 928
South Bend, IN 46624





Dear Mr. Chapleau:

This responds to your letter regarding the automatic seat belt system installed in a model year 1989 passenger car. I regret the delay in our response.

You note that under one of the options specified in S4.1.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, certain requirements must be met by means that "require no action by vehicle occupants." You cite a situation where an 8 1/2 month pregnant female owned a 1989 passenger car with a three-point automatic seat belt system. You state that the person advises that:

when she would open the door to get into the vehicle, she had a difficult time because the lower portion of the belt would catch on her legs thereby causing the door to pull shut before her entire body was inside the vehicle and in the seat. Therefore, she unlatched the belt system during her pregnancy so she could more easily enter the vehicle and then would latch the buckle once she was in the driver's seat.

You also state that there were other instances when:

the driver entered the vehicle with the belt latched and the seat belt would end up around the driver's knees when the door was closed. It would be necessary to move the belt from the knees to the pelvis.

You ask: "Under the above circumstances, would this constitute action required by the driver?"

In a notice published in the Federal Register on November 6, 1985 (50 FR 46056, 46063-64), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provided an interpretation of the phrase "no action by vehicle occupants" for automatic seat belt systems. NHTSA explained:

The concept of an occupant protection system which requires "no action by vehicle occupants," as that term is used in Standard No. 208, is intended to designate a system which will perform its protective restraining function after a normal process of ingress or egress without separate deliberate actions by the vehicle occupant to deploy the restraint system. Thus, the agency considers an occupant protection system to be automatic if an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but would normally slightly push the safety belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort.

I am enclosing a copy of that notice for your convenience. This interpretation was included in Standard No. 208 in the form of a note at the end of the standard.

In evaluating whether a vehicle's automatic seat belt system requires no action by vehicle occupants, we would consider generally whether "an occupant has to take no action to deploy the system but would normally slightly push the safety belt webbing aside when entering or exiting the vehicle or would normally make a slight adjustment in the webbing for comfort," and not the actions of specific individuals.

I hope this letter answers your questions. Should you have any more questions, please feel free to call Otto Matheke of my office at 202-366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:208
d.5/11/01