ID: nht73-3.29

DATE: 02/16/73

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; E. T. Driver; NHTSA

TO: Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of December 28, 1972, concerning the application of Standard 124, "Accelerator Control Systems", to a particular Nissan design.

Prior to our receipt of your letter, Nissan representatives met with representatives from our Office of Operating Systems. At this meeting, Nissan representatives explained their questions and left a carburetor with NHTSA staff engineers as an aid to understanding the matters in question. Your company's concern is with the failure of a spring, designated as spring C, which in the event of severance or disconnection, would allow the secondary throttle plate to stay open slightly and thereby increase normal idle speed by approximately 300 rpm. Since spring C only returns the secondary throttle plate to idle position, spring C could not be considered as a return energy source under S5.1 of the standard, and, the failure of Spring C would not fall under the same requirements as a failure of either A or B. Further, spring C is not a part of the "driver-operated accelerator control system" but is part of the "fuel metering device", and as such, severance or disconnection of spring C would not fall within the purview of S5.2.

You also presented a drawing of an accelerator control system and asked which point of severance or disconnection along the system is appropriate when conducting tests for the standard. Since the standard requires that the return to idle time must be met when "any one component of the accelerator control system disconnected or severed", you ask if this would apply to bolts holding together mounting brackets, or just those components which move in relation to foot-pedal actuation. The components intended to be tested under severance or disconnection in the standard are those which are strictly defined in S4.1. "Driver-operated accelerator control system". Accordingly, those components which move in accomplishing the regulation of engine speed would be tested, while fixed parts such as brackets and bolts depicted by the drawing you submitted would not be tested.

The carburetor your representatives left with us is being returned to Nissan under separate cover. Your letter and the attached photographs of the carburetor with labeled springs will be placed in Docket 69-20.

ID: nht91-7.9

DATE: November 14, 1991

FROM: Edward F. Conway, Jr. -- Assistant General Counsel, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association

TO: Jerry R. Curry -- Administrator, NHTSA

TITLE: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Occupant Crash Protection; Docket No. 89-22; Notice 03

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 1/17/92 from Paul Jackson Rice to Edward F. Conway Jr. (A39; Std. 216)

TEXT:

The purpose of this letter is to request clarification and guidance concerning the roof crash resistance test procedures and pass/fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes with a raised roof, which are prescribed in the subject notice.

In its comments in response to Notice 01 of Docket No. 89-22, RVIA pointed out that the roof crash resistance test procedures and pass/ fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes should not be the same as those for a passenger car and urged NHTSA to develop special test procedures and a separate pass/fail criterion for these vehicles, which take into account their dissimilar physical characteristics.

For example, the prescribed roof crush resistance test device cannot be applied in the manner shown in figure 1 of standard 216 on many van conversions and motor homes that have a raised roof. Instead of impacting solely on the prescribed point, the device will also impact or "foul" the leading edge of the raised roof above and behind that point.

Also, the roof crash test pass/fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes should not be the same as that prescribed for a subcompact and other passenger cars.

In a typical full size passenger car, the floor to roof height is approximately 45 inches and distance between the head of a 50th percentile male seated in the driver's seat and the roof interior surface is approximately 6 inches. In smaller passenger cars, there is often considerably less head room.

However, in a van conversion or a motor home, the floor to roof height may be as much as 76 inches and the head of the 50th percentile male could be as much as 36 inches from the roof. Nevertheless, the roof crash resistance test device still may not depress the roof structure of these vehicles more than the FIVE INCHES allowed for a passenger car roof structure.

Thus, a van conversion or motor home with a roof elevated sufficiently to allow occupants to stand upright would fail the roof crush resistance test if its roof structure was depressed more than five inches, despite the fact its depressed roof structure remains well above the heads of seated occupants!

In the subject Notice, NHTSA did not resolve these issues. Instead, it merely acknowledged that these and other issues raised by commentators concerning alternative test procedures and requirements merit further consideration. NHTSA also stated that it will analyze these issues further and may propose amendments to the test procedure.

In the meantime, we respectfully request that NHTSA provide clarification and guidance concerning the roof crush resistance test procedures and the pass/fail criterion for van conversions and motor homes with a raised roof.

ID: nht88-1.84

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 04/04/88

FROM: L.T. MITCHELL -- SPECIFICATION ENGINEER THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC

TO: ERIKA Z. JONES -- OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNCIL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 08/11/88 L.T. MITCHELL FROM ERIKA Z JONES, REDBOOK A32 (2) STANDARD 108

TEXT: Dear Ms. Jones,

We and some of our customers have had a disagreement with a state's Motor Vehicle Code concerning the installation of a warning light system on activity buses. Attached is a copy of Sections 46.1-1(37) and 46.1-286.1. These are the State definitions of "School Bus" and a limitation for school bus equipment, respectively.

The limitation is that "Only school buses...may be painted yellow, identified by words above and equipped with the specified warning devices". These "warning devices" include the warning light system. Thus a bus that is not painted yellow does not need to have warning lights. This group of "not painted yellow" buses includes school activity buses.

The Federal "Schoolbus" definition includes the phrase "...or events related to such schools". Thus, as we understand it, school activity buses are included in the D.O.T. definition of a school bus.

FMVSS #108 (49 CFR Part 571.108) states in S4.1.4, "Each school bus shall be equipped with a system of either: (a) Four red signal lamps...(b) Four red signal lamps...and four amber signal lamps..."

QUESTION: Does a final stage manufacturer of school buses have to install warning lights on a school activity bus?

We have up to this time installed a four light warning system on activity buses. This has placed our product at a distinct price disadvantage because some competitors are not always installing a warning light system on school activity buses. In addition , our customers are having to remove the warning lights from activity

buses because they are not painted yellow, and thus, they do not meet the Motor Vehicle Code.

We request an interpretation of FMVSS #108 in these matters. Thank you for a quick and timely response.

Sincerely.

Enclosure MOTOR VEHICLE CODE

(37) "School bus". -- Any motor vehicle, other than a station wagon, automobile, truck, or commercial bus, which is: (i) designed and used primarily for the transportation of pupils to and from public, private or parochial schools, or used for the tra nsportation of the mentally or physically handicapped to and from a sheltered workshop; and (ii) painted yellow and bears the words "School Bus" in black letters of a specified size on front and rear; and (iii) is equipped with warning devices prescribed in @ 46.1-287. School buses, manufactured prior to July 1, 1974, may continue to have the words "Stop, State Law" in black letters of specified size on front and rear.

@ 46.1-169.1. Operation of yellow motor vehicles of certain seating capacity on State highways prohibited; exceptions; penalty. -- It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle licensed in[Illegible words] having a seating capacity of more than fifteen p ersons to be operated on the highways of this State if it be yellow in color, unless such motor vehicle is used in transporting students who attend public, private or parochial schools, or for the purposes specified in @ 46.1-287.1 and meets the requirem ents for motor vehicles used in the transportation of pupils in the public schools. This section shall not apply to motor vehicles which transport passengers as well as school children for hire in the cities of[Illegible Words] Violators of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (1966, c. 586; 1968, c. 756; 1970, c. 521.)

@ 46.1-286.1. Paint and lettering on school bus. -- All motor vehicles, except commercial buses, station wagons, automobiles or trucks, transporting pupils to and from public, private or parochial schools shall be painted yellow with the words "Schoo l Bus, Stop, State Law" on the front and rear in letters at least six inches high, except that the words "School Bus" on the front may be in letters at least four inches high if space is limited, or with only the words "School Bus" on front and rear in l etters at least eight inches high, and shall be equipped with warning devices prescribed in @ 46.1-287. Only school buses, as defined in @ 46.1-1 (37), may be painted yellow, identified by words above and equipped with the specified warning devices. A vehicle which merely transports pupils, residents at a school, from one point to another without intermittent stops for the purpose of picking up or discharging pupils, need not comply with the requirements of this section. (1968. c. 653; 1974, c. 455. )

ID: 1983-2.26

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 07/07/83 EST

FROM: FRANK BERNDT -- CHIEF COUNSEL, NHTSA

TO: BINICHI DOI -- NSK REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE

TITLE: NOA-30

ATTACHMT: MEMO DATED 1-31-83, SAFETY BELT RETRACTORS, TO ROBERT NELSON, FROM BINICHI DOI

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether a continuous loop seat belt system with a tension reliever ("window-shade device") on the upper torso section of the belt must have a one-way locking tongue.

Continuous seat belt systems are permissible under Safety Standard No. 208 if certain conditions are met. Paragraph S7.1.1 of that standard requires adjustment of the lap belt portion of Type 2 belts "by means of an emergency locking or automatic locking retractor" and adjustment in most cases of the upper torso portion "by means of an emergency-locking retractor." The language permits single retractor, continuous loop systems if the single retractor does "automatically adjust" the tension of the lap belt portion to prevent excessive slack. Because of the danger of submarining due to a slack lap belt, the agency has restricted the acceptability of continuous loop systems under S7.1.1 in two areas.

First, to conform to the requirements, the buckle of the assembly must be designed by the manufacturer with a sufficiently low level of friction to qualify the lap portion as automatically adjusting. This means that when the belt is buckled by the vehicle occupant, the retractor must be capable of cinching the lap belt tightly around the occupant's pelvic area (regardless of where the buckle tongue is located along the belt webbing when the belt is fastened). The friction in the buckle tongue cannot be so high that the occupant must manually pull the belt webbing through the tongue to tighten the lap belt. Based on our viewing of your proposed belt system (presented by your representative in a May 25th meeting), it is our opinion that your system does not have a sufficiently low level of friction that it would automatically adjust the lap belt portion. It is impossible for us to judge how this

system would perform when installed in a vehicle, however, since the angle of the buckle tongue at the time of fastening does affect its friction level. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether or not its belt design complies with the standard. The agency does not offer advance approval of any motor vehicle or piece of motor vehicle equipment. Further, the agency does not make determinations of compliance of a vehicle or item of equipment prior to the manufacturer's certification of that vehicle or equipment.

The second restriction in regard to continuous loop systems concerns the use of manual and automatic tension relieving devices on the upper torso portion of the continuous loop. In past letters of interpretation, the agency has limited the use of tension relieving devices to the upper torso section of seat belts that have an individually adjustable lap belt. A system does not have an individually adjustable lap belt if slack which is introduced into the continuous loop by a "window shade" device or "comfort clip" is directly transferred to the lap belt. Thus, in answer to your specific question, yes, a continuous loop seat belt system with a tension reliever on the upper torso portion of the belt should have a one-way locking tongue or some other method of preventing slack from returning to the lap belt. The high friction in the buckle tongue of your belt design would likely prevent the return of belt slack to the lap belt. However, as pointed out above, this high friction would also likely prevent the lap belt from adjusting automatically. Granted, these are somewhat conflicting concerns and they do present a tremendous design challenge. However, the agency believes these are necessary requirements if manufacturers include tension-relieving devices in their continuous loop systems.

I hope this clarification will be of help to you in your design plans.

ID: 11247

Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D.
15 Fairview Knoll N.E.
Iowa City, Iowa 52240-9147

Dear Dr. Arnold:

This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were Agranted dispensation from such usage several years ago.@ In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old, 5 feet, three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition.

As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection, requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivation of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. '30122. The section provides that:

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupant restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of crashes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives.

NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency=s actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the agency.

Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconnecting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decision.

If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366- 2992.

Sincerely,

Samuel J. Dubbin Chief Counsel

Enclosure

Ref:208 d:12/ll/95

ID: nht95-4.99

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dorothy Jean Arnold, -- M.D.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/01/95 (est.) letter from Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D., to Safety Administration

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were "granted dispe nsation from such usage several years ago." In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old 45 feets three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition.

As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protect [Illegible Word] requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. T he removal or deactivaxion of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The section provides that provi

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicl e safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperat ive" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupants restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of cra shes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives.

NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency's actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the a gency.

Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconne cting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decisi on.

If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohib ition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on th e safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht95-7.56

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: December 11, 1995

FROM: Samuel J. Dubbin -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Dorothy Jean Arnold, -- M.D.

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: 9/01/95 (est.) letter from Dorothy Jean Arnold, M.D., to Safety Administration

TEXT: This responds to your letter asking whether the air bags in your car can be disconnected. You explained that you are physically impaired by the effects of osteomyelitis, a disease of the bones; cannot use a seatbelt with comfort; and were "granted dispensation from such usage several years ago." In a telephone conversation with Richard Reed of this agency, you indicated that you are 74 years old 45 feets three inches tall, and must sit close to the steering wheel because of your medical condition.

As explained below, our answer is that NHTSA will not institute enforcement proceedings against a repair business that disconnects an air bag on your vehicle to accommodate your condition.

Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protect [Illegible Word] requires that cars be equipped with automatic crash protection at the front outboard seating positions. The air bags in your car were installed as one means of complying with that requirement. The removal or deactivaxion of one of those air bags by a vehicle dealer is governed by a provision of Federal law, 49 U.S.C. @ 30122. The section provides that provi

A manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may not knowingly make inoperative any part of a device or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in compliance with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard.

However, in limited situations in which a vehicle must be modified to accommodate the needs of a person with a particular disability or a person's special medical needs, NHTSA has in the past stated that it would consider violations of the "make inoperative" prohibition as purely technical ones justified by public need, and that it would not institute enforcement proceedings.

I would like to caution you that both safety belts and air bags are very important items of safety equipment. Safety belts are the primary means of occupants restraint, and work in all types of crashes. NHTSA estimates that in 1994, safety belts saved almost 9,200 lives and prevented more than 211,000 moderate to critical injuries. The combination of wearing safety belts and having an air bag installed at a seating position provides vehicle occupants with maximum safety protection in all types of crashes. Also, air bags are designed to offer some protection even when safety belts are not used. Since 1987, air bags are estimated to have saved 911 lives.

NHTSA strongly encourages vehicle occupants to wear their safety belts, since we are concerned about the much higher safety risk faced by unbelted occupants. We understand, however, that you cannot wear your safety belt for medical reasons, and that you are concerned about a possible safety risk from the air bag in such a situation.

While air bags have an impressive overall performance record and are designed to provide some protection even for unbelted occupants, NHTSA has become aware of situations in which current air bags have undesired side effects. These include situations in which an air bag appears to have contributed to serious injuries and even death to vehicle occupants, in minor-to-moderate severity crashes. Information indicates that an air bag might pose a risk of serious injury to unrestrained small statured and/or older people, in particular. I note that NHTSA has recently issued a request for comments (copy enclosed) concerning the agency's actions to minimize the adverse side effects of air bags and to invite the public to share information and views with the agency.

Since your disability prevents you from wearing your safety belt, and given your age and size, the disability places you in a situation where there may be a risk of serious injury from the air bag. While this particular risk can be addressed by disconnecting the air bag, there are trade-offs: Disconnecting the air bag subjects you to a higher risk in crashes, especially higher-speed crashes, where the air bag would provide protection. We urge you to carefully weigh the trade-offs in making your decision.

If you decide that the risk to you from the air bag offsets the potentially life-saving benefits of the air bag, and you wish to have your air bag deactivated, we would regard the deactivation a purely technical violation of the "make inoperative" prohibition justified by public need. Accordingly, we would not institute enforcement proceedings against any person listed in section 30122 who deactivated the air bag. I would recommend that the manufacturer of the vehicle and/or air bag be consulted on the safest way to disconnect the air bag. I also note that the air bag should only be disconnected from a position where you would be seated. In addition, I strongly encourage you to ensure that every person in your vehicle who can use his or her safety belt does so.

I want to add a caution. The purpose of the "make inoperative" prohibition is to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, current and subsequent owners and users of your vehicle are not deprived of the maximum protection afforded by the vehicle as newly manufactured. Accordingly, if you were to sell your vehicle later, we urge that the air bag be reactivated for the subsequent driver.

I hope that this letter resolves your problem. If you have any other questions, please contact Edward Glancy of my staff at this address or by phone at (202) 366-2992.

ID: nht79-2.20

DATE: 09/11/79

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: BMW of North America, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. Karl-Heinz Ziwica Safety & Emission Control Engineering BMW of North America, Inc. Montvale, New Jersey 07645

Dear Mr. Ziwica:

This is in response to your letter of May 16, 1979, to Mr. Schwartz of my office, and in confirmation of your subsequent telephone conversation with him.

You wish to know whether Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 115, Vehicle identification number, permits BMW to use all the permissible numerical digits in the 11th position of the vehicle ientification number (VIN) for each of its two plants, as long as each VIN in its entirety assigned to each individual vehicle uniquely identifies its plant of manufacture. A system such as you suggest was proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking for this standard issued on January 16, 1978 (Docket No. 1-22; Notice 4, 43 FR 2189). The response to this particular proposal was negative, and the rule issued on August 17, 1978, withdrew it. Consequently, the 11th character of the VIN must in and of itself be decipherable into the plant of manufacture (S4.5.3.2).

This is not to say, however, that BMW does not have considerable flexibility in its utilization of the 11th position. As pointed out in Notice 8 (44 FR 17489, March 22, 1979), BMW can submit more than one character to represent a single plant. While this restriction unfortunately may result in some change to the system which BMW is currently employing, the agency believes that a sophisticated allotment of sequential blocks will alleviate at least some of the problems which you foresee.

Sincerely,

Frank Berndt Chief Counsel

May 16, 1979

Mr. Frederic Schwartz, Jr. Office of the Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street S.W. Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Schwartz

This is in reference to previous conversations we had concerning the manufacturer's possibility to submit more than one character to represent a single plant of manufacture under Part 571 of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 115 as published in FR Vol. 44 No. 57 on March 22, 1979.

We wish to know whether the above mentioned regulation allows BMW to use all the permissible numerical digits in the 11th position for each of its two plants, as long as each VIN in its entirety assigned to each individual vehicle uniquely identifies its plant of manufacture.

Your confirmation in writing of this understanding would be appreciated.

Very truly yours

Karl-Heinz Ziwica, Manager Safety & Emission Control Engineering

KHZ/JPS

ID: nht88-1.3

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 01/01/88 EST

FROM: N. BOWYER -- LAND ROVER UK LIMITED

TO: OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COUNSEL, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

TITLE: NONE

ATTACHMT: ATTACHED TO LETTER DATED 10/14/88 FROM ERIKA Z. JONES TO N. BOWYER; REDBOOK A32, STANDARD 208, 209 LETTER DATED 04/19/88 FROM D. BRUCE HENDERSON TO OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, NHTSA; OCC 1908

TEXT: Dear Sir,

I am writing on behalf of Land Rover UK Limited to request, from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 and No. 209. Land Rover UK Limited is a British company which markets its Range Rover model in the United States of America via its subsidiary, Range Rover of North America Inc.

On November 23, 1987, the NHTSA published a final rule amending FMVSS 208 - occupant crash protection. This final rule introduced dynamic test requirements for manual seat belts in both light trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles. Part of this fina l rule introduced a new labelling requirement into FMVSS 209 - seat belt assemblies, and it is this requirement which we would like your interpretation on.

Paragraph S4.6.3. of FMVSS 208 is amended to read "a type of 2 seat belt assembly subject to the requirements of S4.6.1 or S4.6.2. (i.e. the dynamic test requirements) of this standard does not have to meet the requirements of S4.2(a) - (c) and S4.4. of Standard No. 209 (49CFR 571.209) of this part".

2

Paragraph S4.6(b) of FMVSS 209 is amended to read "a seat belt assembly that meets the requirements of S4.6. of the Standard No. 208 (49CFR 571.208) shall be permanently and legibly marked or labelled 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))".

These requirements appear to state that a manufacturer, at his option, can choose to fit seat belts which do not comply with some of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209, provided that they meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS 208. However, th ese amendments also imply that all seat belts which meet the dynamic test requirements must be labelled, in line with the amended FMVSS 209 requirements, regardless of whether or not they comply with all of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209.

Obviously, the NHTSA intended to ensure that seat belts which do not meet all the technical requirements of FMVSS 209, as allowed for in FMVSS 208, should be labelled, thereby ensuring that they are not installed into inappropriate vehicles. However, ou r reading is that the NHTSA did not intend the labelling requirements of FMVSS 209 to be applied to seat belts which comply with both the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS 208 and all of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209. After all, seat belts wh ich only comply with FMVSS 209 are not required to be labelled, so there is no reason to require seat belts which additionally meet the dynamic test requirements of FMVSS 208 need to be labelled. Is this not the correct interpretation of these requireme nts?

3

In considering this question, we would like to refer you to an NPRM which was issued by the NHTSA on December 29, 1987. This NPRM covers modifications to the headlamp requirements of FMVSS 108 and introduces a similar situation. The NPRM proposes simpl ifications to the headlamp requirements and also introduces a requirement that manufacturers supply information (i.e. part numbers) concerning the headlamps to the first purchaser. However, this NPRM proposes that the information is only supplied with v ehicles whose headlamps take advantage of the simplified requirements.

This example clearly indicates the intention to only require information on parts taking advantage of the relaxed requirements. Therefore, the labelling requirement of FMVSS 209 must be interpreted as follows:- 1) Dynamically tested seat belts which do not meet certain FMVSS 209 technical requirements, as allowed for in FMVSS 208, must be labelled in accordance with FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.6(b). 2) Dynamically tested seat belts which also comply with all of the technical requirements of FMVSS 209 need not meet the labelling requirements of FMVSS 209 paragraph S4.6(b).

If your interpretation is contrary to our understanding of the requirements, will you please treat this letter as a petition for rulemaking.

ID: nht78-3.12

DATE: 07/20/78

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; M. M. Finkelstein; NHTSA

TO: Hon. John Glenn -- U.S. Senate

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of June 7, 1978, pertaining to your constituent's, Mrs. Carl A. Koch, concerns regarding motor vehicle seat backs that do not permanently lock.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 207, Seating Systems, copy enclosed, requires that hinged or folding occupant seat or occupant seat back shall be equipped with a self-locking device for restraining the hinged or folding seat or seat back and a control for releasing that restraining device. The industry is currently installing two types of seat back latches, a manual conventional type of latch and a new inertial locking device. The standard requires that the locks withstand a load 20 times the weight of the hinged portion of the seat and is not required to withstand the load of an occupant striking the seat back. Rear occupants are expected to be restrained by the rear seat belts, however, seat backs in locked position, because of some padding, do provide some protection for unrestrained occupants.

The seat back latch referred to by your constituent is an inertial seat back latch which is neither required nor prohibited by the standard. The industry, in an effort to facilitate rapid egress from a motor vehicle in emergency situations, such as a fuel fire, have introduced inertial seat back latches. The seat back latch will lock when the low forces of a panic breaking situation occurs or a high impact force occurs, releasing itself automatically when the inertial forces drop to a predetermined force, normally approximately .5g, allowing rapid occupant egress.

We believe there can be positive post-crash escape advantages for the inertial type seat back latches, however, it would appear from Mrs. Koch's experience that it may be warranted to initiate an investigation of the type of inertial latches installed in the 1978 Ford Granada. Accordingly, I am forwarding a copy of your letter to our Office of Defects Investigation for their action to determine if and what corrective action may be warranted.

I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to Mrs. Koch's inquiry. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.

SINCERELY,

Michael M. Finkelstein Acting Associte Administrator for Rulemaking

June 2, 1978

Dear Senator Glenn,

I have no idea who to write to about what I consider a major problem and since your name and address was listed in the paper and I voted for you I am asking you to get my complaint to the right person.

I recently purchased a 1978 Ford Granada, two door car. No one told me that the seats now do not lock permanently in place and must be released. A small truck with no stop lights on back caused me to brake real fast and my eight year old was sitting on the end of the back seat and the seat acted as a slide when it fell forward and propelled my daughter right up into the windshield. I took it to the service department and have even written Ford Motor Company and they tell me that they cannot lock this seat for me as Ralph Nader has made them put in this kind of seat. They further told me that until I have an accident and maybe kill one of my little ones by having them fly out the windshield they have no way of proving wether my seats actually lock on rapid decellaration. There could be a malfunction and they have no way of checking it out. I can't believe that if you could fly in outer space there isn't something that could be done to give you a choice of wether we want our seats locked while we are driving or wether we prefer them to be movable. If no one is in the car and you stop fast the seat flies forward. It is a distraction and safety hazard. When a child is old enough to open a seat belt it is impossible to keep him in them if he wants to be able to see out the side or front window. I bought a two door car because I have eight children from twenty six to six and I want them confined while I am driving where if anything happens they will receive the least injury possible. With locked seats and no doors to open or windows to open the child is farely safe and I have never had a scare like the incedent that I related at the beginning of my letter.

I am sorry but I think Ralph Nader has made a big goof and who ever in government that is responsible for helping him make this change in automobiles better take a second look and do some more testing. I feel the manufacturer should also be required to have some way of testing to make sure that if I have an accident that these seats are going to lock as we are told they will. I have taken this car out in the country and slowed rapidly, stopped fast and done everything short of hitting a brick wall and these seats will not lock.

Thank you for getting my complaints to the right person,

Dolores A. Koch (Mrs. Carl)